Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00845/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00845-2/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 (Federal)

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vitan Vitanov, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Alberto R. Gonzales, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-0845-PHX-FJM

ORDER

On December 28, 2006, our December 27th order was filed adopting the Report and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and denying the petitioner's Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 17). In that order we noted that no objection to the Report

and Recommendation was filed and the time to file an objection had passed. On December

29, 2006, the clerk entered a document filed by petitioner on December 27th stating that he

had not received a copy of the Report and Recommendation, that he wants to object to the

Report and Recommendation, and further informing the court of his new address (docketed

as docs. 19 and 20). The docket indicates that the Report and Recommendation was mailed

to petitioner on November 27, 2006, and was returned as undeliverable on December 11,

2006. 

We note initially that pursuant to LRCiv 83.3(d), a party is required to file a notice of

change of address ten days before the move becomes effective. Petitioner was informed of

Case 2:06-cv-00845-FJM Document 22 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

this requirement in our order dated May 30, 2006 (doc. 4), and he filed a previous change of

address notice on April 26, 2006 (doc. 3). Although plaintiff's recent notice does not indicate

when his move became effective, it is clear from the date of the returned mail and the filing

of the change of address notice that petitioner failed to comply with the ten-day deadline. 

We construe petitioner's recent filing as a motion under Rule 6(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P.,

to enlarge the time to file his objections to the Report and Recommendation after the period

to object has expired. We deny the motion for petitioner's failure to establish excusable

neglect. Although petitioner appears to claim that he did not receive a copy of the Report

and Recommendation in time to file objections, the petitioner did not receive the Report and

Recommendation because of his failure to timely notify the court of his change of address.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING petitioner's motion to enlarge time to file

objections (docs. 19 and 20). 

DATED this 4th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00845-FJM Document 22 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 2