Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00837/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00837-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On August 27, 2024, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, 

recommending the Court dismiss the petition and deny Petitioner’s requests for injunctive relief. (Doc. 

9.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that any 

objections were due within 14 days. (Id. at 6.) The Court also advised Petitioner the failure to file 

timely objections may result in the wavier of rights. (Id. citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) 

On September 20, 2024, the Court performed a de novo review of the matter, dismissed the 

petition, and entered judgment. (Docs. 10, 11.) After the Court entered judgment—27 days after the 

date of service of the Findings and Recommendations—Petitioner submitted objections to the prison 

mailing system, accompanied by a motion to amend the petition. (Doc. 12 at 5.) Petitioner does not 

explain his untimely objections and did not seek leave for an extension of time. Although he reports 

the prison mail was restricted due to a lockdown from August 9 to August 20, 2024 (id. at 1), the 

LEANTHONY WINSTON,

 Petitioner,

v.

B.M. TRATE,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1: 24-cv-0837 JLT HBK

ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S 

UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO 

AMEND THE PETITION 

Case 1:24-cv-00837-JLT-HBK Document 13 Filed 01/16/25 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reported lockdown ended before the Court served its Findings and Recommendations and did not 

impact Petitioner’s ability to timely respond to the Court. Petitioner’s untimely objections shall be 

disregarded. See, e.g., Tucker v. Hartley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67000, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 3, 

2010) (disregarding objections filed by a petitioner as untimely when filed beyond the objection period 

and after the Court entered judgment). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 

1. Petitioner’s untimely objections to the Findings and Recommendations are 

DISREGARDED.

2. The motion for leave to amend is DISREGARDED.

3. The action SHALL remain closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2025 

Case 1:24-cv-00837-JLT-HBK Document 13 Filed 01/16/25 Page 2 of 2