(HC) Mendez-Barocio v. Valinken ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN MENDEZ-BAROCIO, No. 1:19-cv-01319-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S MOTION TO ACCEPT 13 LATE REPLY TO GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE (Doc. 16) 14 v. ORDER CONSTRUING MOTION TO 15 ALLOW SUPPLEMENT AS REPLY TO ANSWER [Doc. 17] 16 ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO 17 RICHARD VALINKEN, et al., FILE COMPLETED CONSENT/DECLINE FORM 18 Respondents. (FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE) 19 20 21 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 22 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 23 On September 20, 2019, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in this Court. (Doc. 1.) On 24 September 25, 2019, the Court issued a scheduling order directing Respondent to file a response 25 and providing Petitioner the option to file a reply. (Doc. 9.) On December 23, 2019, Respondent 26 filed a response to the petition. (Doc. 15.) Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order, the deadline 27 to file a reply to the response was January 22, 2020. 28 1 On January 22, 2020,1 Petitioner filed a motion to accept a late reply to the answer, as 2 well as a motion entitled “Motion to Allow to Supplement and/or Amend Reply to the 3 Government’s Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” (Docs. 16, 17.) Petitioner’s 4 motion to accept a late reply will be denied as moot, since the filing is not untimely. Petitioner’s 5 second motion to allow supplement, despite its caption, appears to be the actual reply, insofar as it 6 contains Petitioner’s arguments in response to Respondent’s answer. Therefore, the Court will 7 construe the motion as Petitioner’s reply. Briefing is now concluded in this matter. 8 ORDER 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows: 10 1) Petitioner’s motion to accept late reply is DENIED AS MOOT; 11 2) Petitioner’s pleading entitled “Motion to Allow to Supplement and/or Amend Reply to 12 the Government’s Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” is CONSTRUED 13 as Petitioner’s reply to Respondent’s answer; and 14 3) Respondent is DIRECTED to submit, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service 15 of this Order, a completed consent/decline form indicating whether Respondent 16 consents or declines to consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Sheila K. Oberto 19 Dated: January 29, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Although the motions were filed in this Court on January 27, 2020, they were signed and dated by Petitioner on January 22, 2020. Under the mailbox rule, a pro se litigant’s pleading is deemed filed on the date of its submission to 27 prison authorities for mailing, as opposed to the date of its receipt by the court clerk. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Therefore, the Court deems the motions filed on January 22, 2020, the date Petitioner signed and 28 presumably handed his documents to prison authorities for mailing.