Opinion
Case Nos. 6:04-cv-1204-Orl-19JGG, 6:00-cr-009-Orl-19JGG.
August 21, 2006
ORDER
This case is before the Court on the following matters:
1. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a limited remand to determine when Petitioner delivered his second pro se notice of appeal, filed on January 9, 2006, to prison authorities for mailing. See Doc. No. 50. Following the remand, Petitioner was directed to file evidence demonstrating whether the prison from which he mailed the second notice of appeal had a system of legal mail and, if so, whether he utilized such system to mail the second notice of appeal. Petitioner was also advised of the opportunity demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause if the second notice of appeal was not timely filed. Petitioner filed a Verified Response (Doc. No. 54), the Government filed a Response to Petitioner's Verified Response (Doc. No. 57), and Petitioner filed a Response in Opposition to the Government's Response to Petitioner's Verified Response (Doc. No. 59).
In his Verified Response, Petitioner indicates that "he did deliver his second pro-se notice of appeal, his C.O.A. and I.F.P. to authorities on or about December 11, 2005, for mailing. . . ." Id. at 2. He has included a copy of the cover letter, dated December 11, 2005, that he sent with the notice appeal. He also states that the prison had a legal mail depository at the time, but alleges that the legal mail system was deficient and has since been replaced. Id.
In its response, the Government argues that Petitioner's "self-serving statement, unsupported by independent evidence" is insufficient and should be disregarded. The Government has submitted no evidence contradicting Petitioner's sworn statement.
Based on the evidence submitted, this Court concludes that Petitioner submitted his second pro se notice of appeal to prison authorities for mailing on December 11, 2005. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the record, as supplemented, to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
2. Petitioner's Motion to Transfer Records (Doc. No. 56, filed July 24, 2006) is DENIED. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the relief he seeks.
3. Petitioner's Judicial Complaint (Doc. No. 58, filed August 14, 2006) is construed as a motion for relief. However, Petitioner has not demonstrated grounds warranting the relief requested. Therefore, the motion is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.