(HC)Perlaza v. Warden

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN DARIO PERLAZA, Case No. 1:24-cv-0693 JLT EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS 13 v. (Doc. 29) 14 WARDEN, F.C.I. MENDOTA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On December 2, 2024, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, 18 recommending the Court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 26.) The Court 19 served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that any objections 20 were due within 30 days. (Id. at 6.) The Court also advised Petitioner the failure to file timely 21 objections may result in the wavier of rights. (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 22 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) 23 On January 16, 2025, the Court performed a de novo review of the matter, dismissed the 24 petition, and entered judgment. (Docs. 27, 28.) After the Court entered judgment—46 days after 25 the date of service of the Findings and Recommendations—the Court received objections signed 26 and dated January 13, 2025.1 (Doc. 29 at 2.) Even assuming the objections were submitted to the 27 1 It is unclear whether Petitioner submitted his objections to the prison mailing system the same date as the indicate 28 signature date. nen nn ene EI EE I EIS IEE

1 | prison mailing system on January 13, 2025, the filing is untimely as they were dated beyond the 2 | deadline ordered by the Court. Petitioner did not seek an extension of time to file objections, and 3 | he does not explain the delay in any manner. (See generally Doc. 29.) For this reason, Petitioner’s 4 | untimely objections shall be disregarded.’ See, e.g., Branch v. Yates, 2011 WL 443639, at *1 5 | (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2011) (disregarding objections filed by a petitioner as untimely when filed 6 | beyond the objection period). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. Petitioner’s untimely objections to the Findings and Recommendations are 8 DISREGARDED. 9 2. The action SHALL remain closed. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: _ January 31, 2025 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 || ? Even ifthe Court were to consider the untimely objections, Petitioner’s arguments are unavailing. Petitioner’s objections appear predicated on the assertion that he does not have a final order of removal. 26 || (Doc. 12 at 2.) However, as the Court observed in its de novo review, a “Notice and Order of Expedited Removal” that was issued against Petitioner on April 16, 2024. (Doc. 27 at 1; see also Doc. 22 [under 27 || seal].) Such a “Notice and Order of Expedited Removal” qualifies as a final removal order. See Lopez v. Garland, 40 F.4th 996, 1001 (th Cir. 2022) (recognizing expedited removal proceeding result in final 28 | orders of removal); see also Alcala v. Holder, 563 F.3d 1009, 1014 (9th Cir. 2009).