Opinion
19cv1964 LAB (JLB)
10-05-2021
EDUARDO TORRES, Petitioner, v. RALPH DIAZ, Secretary, et al., Respondents.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DKT. 62]
Hon. Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge
Petitioner Eduardo Torres, currently incarcerated in state facilities, challenges his continued confinement. Respondents moved to dismiss his Amended Petition on the grounds that Torres's original Petition was time-barred and the Amended Petition included a theory for which Torres hadn't exhausted his state court remedies alongside those for which he had. Torres subsequently moved to stay this proceeding while pursuing state court remedies, moved to amend his petition to add a claim of actual innocence, then made an additional filing seeking a stay and abeyance.
Each of these Motions was referred Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt for a Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Judge Burkhardt's R&R recommended that the Court: 1) deny the Motion to Dismiss as to its claim that the petition was time-barred; 2) deny the Motion to Dismiss as moot insofar as it sought dismissal due to Torres's failure to seek a stay; 3) grant Torres's motions 1 for stay and abeyance; and 4) deny Torres's Motion for Leave to Amend. (Dkt. 50.) The R&R set an objection deadline of January 15, 2021. The Court, having received no objection, adopted the R&R as to the Motion to Dismiss, Torres's first Motion for Stay and Abeyance, and the Motion for Leave to Amend, but denied the second Motion for Stay and Abeyance as moot. (Dkt. 52.)
Shortly thereafter, the Court received two motions for extension of the deadline to object to the R&R, stating under penalty of perjury that, due to the conditions of his confinement in a mental health facility, Torres didn't receive the R&R until late February. The Court denied those late-received motions but permitted Torres to seek reconsideration of its adoption of the R&R.
Torres timely moved for reconsideration, but he didn't identify any substantive basis for amending the Court's handling of the R&R. His motion stated only that “[he] could use the help” because “[he is] innocent” and “gravely disabled.” (Dkt. 62.) Lacking any substantive objection to the Court's adoption of the R&R, the motion to reconsider is DENIED. (Dkt. 62.)
The case remains stayed, and Torres's claims continue to be held in abeyance pending the exhaustion of his actual innocence claim. No response to the Amended Petition will be necessary until after the stay is lifted.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2