Opinion
2:22-cv-1575 DB P
12-27-2022
RICHARD HOWARD WATKINS, Petitioner, v. 3RD DISTRICT APPELLATE COURT, Respondent.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2019 Sacramento County Superior Court judgment and sentence. Presently before the court is petitioner's motion for review and request for copies. (ECF No. 6.)
I. Background
Petitioner initiated this action by filing the petition on September 1, 2022. Four days after the petition was filed on the docket, petitioner filed a notice of errata. (ECF No. 3.) The notice stated that petitioner made a mistake in sending the petition and that the petition should have been sent to the Third District Court of Appeals. (Id.) Petitioner also indicated on the first page of the petition that it was directed toward the Third District Court of Appeals. (See ECF No. 1 at 1.)
Under the prison mailbox rule, a document is deemed served or filed on the date a prisoner signs the document and gives it to prison officials for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing the prison mailbox rule); Campbell v. Henry, 614 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying the mailbox rule to both state and federal filings by incarcerated inmates).
In light of the notice of errata and the caption on page one of the petition, it appeared that petitioner did not intend to file a petition in this court. Accordingly, the court construed petitioner's notice of errata as a request for voluntary dismissal and closed the case.
Thereafter, petitioner filed the instant motion for review and request for copies. (ECF No. 6.) Therein, petitioner requested that the court explain why the petition was dismissed. He stated that he did not ask for any of the petitions that he has sent to this court to be dismissed. He further stated that he did not ask this court to dismiss his direct appeal. He argues that it has been difficult to get access to legal materials and legal documents due to the pandemic. (Id. at 1-2.) Petitioner further states that his intent in filing the petition was to avoid filing a mixed petition. Because petitioner has indicated that he did not intend to voluntarily dismiss the petition and in light of his pro se status, the court will vacate the entry of dismissal and screen the petition in due course.
Petitioner was previously advised that the Clerk's office will provide copies of documents and the docket sheet at $0.50 per page. Accordingly, his request for copies has been denied.
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's motion for review (ECF No. 6) is granted;
2. The Clerk's notice of voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 4) is vacated; and
3. This action is reopened.