(PC) Hackworth v. Arevalos

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT HACKWORTH, JR., No. 1:19-cv-1362 NONE JLT P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR HEARING 13 v. (Doc. 21) E.AREVALOS, et al., 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff moves for a hearing to address his concerns regarding the delayed mailing of his second amended complaint by institutional staff at Kern Valley State Prison. Plaintiff’s primary concern appears to be that the pleading will be considered untimely even though he mailed it two weeks before the filing deadline. While the Court did not receive this pleading until August 3, 2020—shortly after the filing deadline—plaintiff’s proof of service indicates that he submitted it for mailing on July 15, 2020. (See Doc. 20 at 69.) Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010); see Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating the “mailbox rule applies to Section 1983 suits filed by pro se prisoners”).

27 //// //// 1 Pursuant to the mailbox rule, plaintiff’s second amended complaint is deemed timely filed, even though it was received after the filing deadline. Plaintiff’s motion for a hearing (Doc. 21) is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated: October 2, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE