*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No.97-50371

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIKE MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(A-96-CV-142)

June 3, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, REYNALDO G. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mike Martinez, proceeding pro se, appealsthe denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

petition for habeas corpus. Martinez seeks a remand in order to file objections to

the magistrate judge’s recommendation, contending that the district court erred in
1 Fed.R.Civ. P. 6(a); 72(b). The record discloses that the report and recommendation

was served on March 3, 1997.

2 Although Martinez’ motion was not received by the court untilMarch 19, 1997, it

was deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the clerk. See

Thompson v. Raspberry, 993 F.2d 513 (5th Cir. 1993).

3 Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981).

4 Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1417 (5th Cir. 1995).

2

denying his motion for extension of time.

Amagistrate judge reviewed Martinez’ petition and recommended that relief

be denied. Martinez had until March 17, 1997 to file objections to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.1 Martinez moved for an extension of time on March 14,

1997, alleging that he was being transferred to another facility and did not have

access to legal materials.2 On March 24, 1997 the district court denied the motion

for an extension of time to file objections, finding Martinez’ pro se status and lack

of legal knowledge to be insufficient bases for an extension. That same date the

district court adopted the report of the magistrate judge and entered judgment

denying the requested 2255 relief.

We recognize that the “right of self-representation does not exempt a party

from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law,”3and that

courts have the power “to manage their own affairsso asto achieve the orderly and

expeditious disposition of cases.”4 The conditions and limitations of a pro se
5 See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).

3

prisoner’s confinement, however, must be given adequate consideration in the

assurance of adequate access to the courts.5 

Martinez timely moved for an extension of time to file objections, his first

such request, alleging that he was being transferred to another prison facility and

did not have immediate accessto legal materials. Such circumstances present more

than sufficient justification for a modest extension of time. Accordingly, we must

find and conclude that Martinez should have been granted a reasonable extension

of time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report. We therefore must

vacate the judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

and denying Martinez’ § 2255 petition, and return this matter to the district court

for a redetermination and resolution after Martinez is given a reasonable

opportunity to file objections. In so ruling we do not imply, suggest, or intimate

any particular disposition of this matter, leaving same entirely to the district court

in the first instance.

VACATED and REMANDED.