Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08078/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08078-1/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 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Carlton Errol Godwin, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

R Allen Bock, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-08078-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on April 5, 2013. On 

November 7, 2013, the state filed a limited answer. On December 12, 2013, the 

Magistrate Judge extended the time for Petitioner to file his Reply to the state’s answer to 

January 14, 2014.1

 Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge granted Petitioner extensions of time to file his 

Reply to the state’s limited answer through March 27, 2015. See Doc. 40. Having given 

Petitioner over a year of extensions, the Magistrate Judge cautioned Petitioner that there 

would be no further extension of this deadline and advised Petitioner that his Reply had 

to be docketed by March 27, 2015. Id. 

 As of March 27, 2015, this Court had not received a Reply from Petitioner. 

Accordingly, on March 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation and recommended that the Petition be denied by this Court. 

 

1

 On November 18, 2013, Petitioner filed a document entitled Reply/Traverse. While that document is called a traverse, it does not appear to be a reply to the state’s answer, but instead a reply in support of Petitioner’s motion at Doc. 13. 

Case 3:13-cv-08078-JAT Document 44 Filed 06/03/15 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 

 On that same day, but later in the day, the Clerk’s office docketed Petitioner’s 

Reply/Traverse to the state’s limited answer. Thereafter, on April 13, 2015, Petitioner 

filed a request to reconsider the Report and Recommendation in light of his 

Reply/Traverse. Doc. 43. Petitioner argues that his Reply/Traverse is timely under the 

mailbox rule. Id. Petitioner has not timely filed objections to the Report and 

Recommendation. 

 Inmates get the benefit of the mailbox rule, i.e. that an inmate=s pleading is 

deemed to be filed the day he hands it to the prison official for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 

487 U.S. 266 (1988); U.S. v. Garcia, 210 F.3d 1058, 1061 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2000). In this 

case, however, Petitioner is not in custody. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to the 

benefit of the mailbox rule and his Reply/Traverse is untimely. As a result, the Court 

finds no basis for his motion for reconsideration and it will be denied. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 43) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner has until June 25, 2015, to file his 

objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, as outlined in Doc. 41 at 12. 

 Dated this 3rd day of June, 2015. 

Case 3:13-cv-08078-JAT Document 44 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 2