Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
JDDL

MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Neil Rusty Bond, Defendant/Movant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CR 03-974-PHX-DGC No. CV 08-77-PHX-DGC (CRP) ORDER

I.

Background On January 15, 2008, Movant Neil Rusty Bond, who is confined in the Federal

Correctional Institution-La Tuna (FCI-La Tuna) in Anthony, Texas, filed a pro se "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Supported by Grounds, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and Conclusion, as Set Forth U.S.C. Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 153, § 2255" ("Motion"). In a March 5, 2008 Order, the Court denied the Motion because it was not filed on the courtapproved form. The Court gave Movant 30 days to file an amended motion on the courtapproved form. II. Pending Motion On March 26, 2008, Movant filed a "Motion to Order Production of Movant's Legal Paperwork, Including Movant's Amended 2255 Petition, and Immediately Release from Custody" (Doc. #295). On March 31, 2008, an Affidavit from a Counselor, Robert Lujan, at FCI-La Tuna was filed in Movant's criminal case (Doc. #298); the affidavit relates to some of the allegations in Movant's Motion to Order Production.
Case 2:03-cr-00974-DGC Document 299 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
JDDL

In his Motion to Order Production, Movant states that he completed his Amended § 2255 Motion on March 11, 2008, while he was confined in the Corrections Corporation of America's Central Arizona Detention Center (CCA-CADC). Movant alleges that he gave the Amended § 2255 Motion to a case manager at CCA-CADC, who assured Movant that she would make copies of the Amended § 2255 Motion for him. Movant asserts that he was transferred to FCI-La Tuna that same day, that he was not allowed to bring his legal paperwork with him, and that he has not yet received his legal paperwork, despite the case manager at CCA-CADC assuring Movant and Counselor Lujan that the legal paperwork was en route. Movant "declares the combination of timing of Bond's transfer, the den[i]al of Bond's legal paperwork transferred with Bond and the loss of Bond's legal paperwork, including Bond's Amended 2255 Petition to be unconstitutional, unjust, and greatly compromises Bond's legal position, allowing the Court at the Court's discretion to immediately release Bond from custody during Bond's 2255 proceedings." Movant also requests that the Court extend the date to file his § 2255 Motion and send Movant a copy of a current, courtapproved form for filing a § 2255 Motion. III. Discussion As of the time Counselor Lujan's Affidavit was signed, Movant's legal paperwork had not yet arrived from CCA-CADC. This was sixteen days after Movant was transferred. It appears that the employees at FCI-La Tuna are actively assisting Movant in obtaining his legal paperwork. An order compelling the production of Movant's legal paperwork is premature. However, the Court will extend the time for Movant to file his amended § 2255 motion. The Court will also direct the Clerk of Court to send Movant a copy of the courtapproved form for filing a § 2255 motion. The Court will deny Movant's request to be released. .... ....
Case 2:03-cr-00974-DGC Document 299 -2Filed 04/25/2008 Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
JDDL

IV.

Warnings A. Address Changes

Movant must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Movant must not include a motion for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this § 2255 action. B. Copies

Movant must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Movant. C. Possible Dismissal

If Movant fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this § 2255 action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court). IT IS ORDERED: (1) Movant's "Motion to Order Production of Movant's Legal Paperwork,

Including Movant's Amended 2255 Petition, and Immediately Release from Custody" (Doc. #295) is denied in part and granted in part, as follows: (a) Movant's request for an order of production of his legal paperwork is denied without prejudice because it is premature. (b) (c) Movant's request for release from custody is denied. Movant's request for an extension of time to file his amended § 2255 motion is granted. (d) Movant's request for a copy of the Court's court-approved form for filing a § 2255 motion is granted. (2) Movant has 60 days from the date of filing of this Order to file an amended

motion in compliance with this Order and the Court's March 5, 2008 Order.
Case 2:03-cr-00974-DGC Document 299 -3Filed 04/25/2008 Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
JDDL

(3)

If Movant fails to file an amended motion within 60 days, the Clerk of Court

must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this § 2255 action, without prejudice. (4) The Clerk of Court must mail Movant a court-approved form for filing a

Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody (28 U.S.C. § 2255). DATED this 22nd day of April, 2008.

Case 2:03-cr-00974-DGC

Document 299

-4Filed 04/25/2008

Page 4 of 4