Opinion
CV-21-00217-TUC-JCH
10-29-2021
Jose Castillo-Torres, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
HONORABLE JOHN C. HINDERAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the Petitioner's Motion for Leave of Court to File a Pro Se Petitioner's Objection to Report and Recommendation and Extension to [sic] Time for Filing of 30 Days (“Motion”) (Doc. 12). On May 20, 2021, Petitioner filed the pending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman's for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to LRCiv 72.2. (Doc. 5.) Judge Bowman's September 21, 2021 Report and Recommendation recommended dismissal of the petition and, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), explicitly instructed that “any party may serve and file written objections within 14 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation.” (Doc. 11 at 6.) Petitioner did not file an objection within the allotted 14 days and now requests additional time to do so. (Doc. 12.) Respondents did not respond to Petitioner's Motion.
The Report and Recommendation recommends dismissal on a single issue: the timeliness of petitioner's filing. (Doc. 11.)
Petitioner asserts that good cause exists to grant the Motion because “[h]e has been utterly abandoned by his appointed habeas counsel.” (Doc. 12 at 1.) A review of the record indicates that Petitioner has at all times in the instant action proceeded pro se. However, Petitioner indicated in his Motion to Correct Surname of Record that a third party assisted him in the preparation of this habeas application. (Doc. 9 at 1.) The Order on the motion reflects the same. (Doc 10 at 1 (“The petitioner explains that his surname is Castillo-Torres, but the person who prepared his habeas petition incorrectly wrote his surname as Castillo-Flores” (emphasis added)).) Therefore, the Court construes this to mean that Petitioner was previously receiving aid in this proceeding, and he is now arguing that his failure to timely file an objection is due to a lack of continuity in aid.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Petitioner's Motion. (Doc. 12). Petitioner shall file an objection to the Report and Recommendation within 30 days from the date of this order. Thereafter, the Respondents have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objection. No. reply briefs shall be filed unless leave to do so is granted by the district court.