Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02679/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02679-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 - 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Allace L. Cornellier, )

)

Petitioner, ) No. CV-05-2679-PHX-PGR (JM)

)

vs. )

) ORDER

Dora Schriro, et al., )

)

Respondents. ) )

On December 20, 2006, Magistrate Judge Marshall entered a Report and

Recommendation stating that the petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be dismissed as

having been untimely filed. The petitioner did not file any objection to the Report

and Recommendation. On February 6, 2007, the Court entered both an order

(doc. #16) that accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

(doc. #15) and a judgment (doc. #17) that dismissed the petitioner's Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On February 23, 2007, the petitioner filed a

Petition for Reconsideration (doc. #18) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), wherein

he stated that he did not object to the Report and Recommendation because he

Case 2:05-cv-02679-PGR Document 27 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 The undersigned Judge notes that the first knowledge he received of the

Ninth Circuit's order came on June 7, 2007, which is when (1) the Ninth Circuit Clerk's

Office telephoned the undersigned Judge's chambers inquiring about the status of a

ruling on the petitioner's request for reconsideration and faxed to chambers a copy of its

April 5, 2007 order on being informed that this Court had no knowledge of the order,

and (2) coincidentally, the undersigned Judge received a copy of the petitioner's letter of

inquiry which contained a copy of the Ninth Circuit's order. A review of the Ninth

Circuit's order establishes that the reason that this Court never timely received a copy of

the order is that the Ninth Circuit inadvertently captioned the order as being from an

appeal from a District of Oregon case and presumably mistakenly sent the copy of its

order to the District of Oregon. A copy of the Ninth Circuit's order was docketed in this

case on June 7, 2007.

- 2 -

never received a copy of it, as well as a Notice of Appeal (doc. #19), and a

Motion/Request for a Certificate of Appealability (doc. #20). On February 28,

2007, the Court entered a certificate of appealability, wherein it noted that the

petitioner's concurrent Notice of Appeal divested this Court of jurisdiction to rule

on the reconsideration request; the certificate further stated that the Court would

grant the reconsideration requested by the petitioner if the Ninth Circuit remanded

this case to this Court for the purpose of resolving the reconsideration request. 

Unbeknownst to the Court, the Ninth Circuit entered an order on April 5, 2007

wherein it stayed the petitioner's appeal pending a ruling from this Court on the

petitioner's request for reconsideration. The petitioner, in a letter filed on June 4,

2007, has requested that the Court provide him with the status of his request for

reconsideration.1

Although the copy of the Report and Recommendation was timely mailed

to the petitioner at his address of record and was never returned to the Court as

undeliverable, the Court accepts the petitioner's statement in his Petition for

Reconsideration that he never received his copy. The Court will this thus grant

the Petition for Reconsideration, and will vacate its order and judgment entered

Case 2:05-cv-02679-PGR Document 27 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 3
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 - 3 -

on February 6, 2007, and will permit the petitioner to now file an objection to the

Report and Recommendation. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner's motion for status (doc. #25) is

granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Petition for

Reconsideration (doc. #18) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order (doc. #16) dismissing the

petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Judgment of

dismissal (doc. #17) are both vacated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail the

petitioner a copy of the Report and Recommendation (doc. #15).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner shall file his objection to the

Report and Recommendation (doc. #15) no later than July 6, 2007.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of

this Order to the Clerk of the Court for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED this 7th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02679-PGR Document 27 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 3