Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01467/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01467-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosanne Campbell
Respondent
Steven Robert Sloan
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN ROBERT SLOAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-1467 AWI SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. #19]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On November 16, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. On

March 28, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as being filed outside the one-year

limitations period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner filed an opposition to

Respondent’s motion to dismiss on May 5, 2006. The undersigned issued a Findings and

Recommendation on May 23, 2006, which recommended the motion to dismiss be denied. No party

filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. On July 24, 2006, District Judge Anthony W.

Ishii adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full and denied the motion to dismiss.

On July 27, 2006, the undersigned issued an order directing Respondent to file a response.

Case 1:05-cv-01467-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

Then, on September 22, 2006, Respondent filed a motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration and a motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence. Petitioner

filed a response to the motion on October 10, 2006. Respondent filed a reply to Petitioner’s response

on October 20, 2006. Upon finding good cause for Respondent’s failure to timely file objections to

the Findings and Recommendation, on October 24, 2006, the undersigned granted Respondent’s

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

DISCUSSION

Pending before the Court is Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying her

motion to dismiss. Respondent contends that newly discovered evidence in the form of prison mail

logs demonstrates Petitioner submitted his federal petition to prison authorities on November 14,

2006. Therefore, pursuant to the mailbox rule, the federal petition should be deemed filed on 

November 14, 2006, rather than October 21, 2005, the date Petitioner signed the petition. This

determination is critical, for as the undersigned found in the Findings and Recommendation of

May 23, 2006, the statute of limitations expired on October 31, 2005. If Respondent’s arguments

have merit, the instant petition would be untimely.

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, 

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud 

(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been

reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should 

have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 

operation of the judgment.

In the interest of judicial economy, the Court will not rehash the entire Findings and

Recommendation of May 23. The Court adopts the arguments and reasoning set forth in the Findings

and Recommendation with the exception of the determination of the date the instant federal petition

was filed.

In Houston v. Lack, the Supreme Court held that a pro se habeas petitioner's notice of appeal

is deemed filed on the date of its submission to prison authorities for mailing, as opposed to the date

Case 1:05-cv-01467-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

of its receipt by the court clerk. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has

applied the rule to assess the timeliness of federal habeas filings under the AEDPA limitations

period. Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222, (9 Cir. 2001), citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, th

276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2385 (1988).

In her motion for reconsideration, Respondent has submitted the prison mail log for

Petitioner for the months of July, 2005, to January, 2006. According to the mail log, no mail was

sent by Petitioner in the month of October, 2005. On November 14, 2005, however, four packages

were mailed to this Court. Therefore, Respondent argues, Petitioner could not have submitted his

petition to prison authorities on October 21, 2005, as he has stated, and the mail log demonstrates

Petitioner presented his petition to prison authorities for mailing on November 14, 2005. In Huizar,

the Ninth Circuit stated that a “prison's log of outgoing mail provides strong evidence of the date [the

petitioner] handed over his petition.” 273 F.3d at 1224. 

Petitioner argues the mail log does not accurately reflect how mail is handled at his

institution. He states: “It is the policy and practiced procedure at the institution the [sic] the

Petitioner is being held at that when processing out-going Legal mail, Staff must witness and verify

the signature and date of the documents that are to be mailed prior to sealing them into an envelope,

signing and dating said envelope, thus designating that parcel “Legal Mail.” Petitioner’s Rebuttal to

Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration (hereinafter “Rebuttal”) at 3. In light of this procedure,

Petitioner argues that “it has to [be] believed that Petitioner’s petition was dated, signed and verified

to be “Legal Mail” in the presence of an Institutional Staff member prior to it’s delivery into the

Institution’s mail service.” Id. at 3-4.

Respondent has submitted the affidavit of Ronda Holtorf, the Office Services Supervisor in

the mailroom at Mule Creek State Prison, where Petitioner is incarcerated. Ms. Holtorf’s declaration

flatly refutes Petitioner’s version of the policy and procedure at Mule Creek State Prison. According

to Ms. Holtorf, it is not the policy and practiced procedure for prison staff to witness and verify the

date and signature of documents. Ms. Holtorf states: “Legal documents are considered confidential.

Staff take extra precaution to not read the documents by turning the document upside down when

inspecting the envelope for contraband.” See Exhibit A, Respondent’s Reply to Petitioner’s Rebuttal

Case 1:05-cv-01467-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 11/17/06 Page 3 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 4

to Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, Holtorf Declaration, ¶ 5. Indeed, she states, “At no

time does an officer witness or verify the signature and date of the petition or other legal documents

at the time the out-going legal mail is processed.” Id., ¶ 6. Ms. Holtorf also states that any out-going

legal mail processed by a housing unit officer is deposited in the housing unit mailbox the same day,

and this mail is taken to the mailroom and mailed out on the same day. Id., ¶ 8. These policy and

procedures are set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 15, sections 3141 and 3144.

Therefore, it is apparent that Petitioner presented his petition to prison authorities on or about

November 14, 2006. As noted above, the prison mail log provides strong evidence of the date

Petitioner handed over his petition for mailing. Huizar, 273 F.3d at 1224. In addition, Petitioner’s

arguments with respect to the policy and procedures at his institution are clearly contradicted by the

declaration of the mailroom supervisor and the applicable California statutes. Thus, it is this Court’s

determination that the instant federal petition should be deemed filed on November 14, 2005, the

date Petitioner handed his petition over to prison authorities for filing. Houston, 487 U.S. at 276;

Huizar, 273 F.3d at 1222. As the limitations period had already expired on October 31, 2005, the

instant petition is untimely. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration should be granted and her

motion to dismiss the petition for untimeliness should be granted.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS:

1) Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration be GRANTED;

2) Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss based on a violation of the statute of limitations be

GRANTED; and

3) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. 

Within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after being served with a copy,

any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

Case 1:05-cv-01467-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 11/17/06 Page 4 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 5

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to

the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail)

after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01467-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 11/17/06 Page 5 of 5