Beames v. Cullen
Filing
210
ORDER GRANTING Respondent's Unopposed Motion for First Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/24/2016. (Respondent's Post-Hearing Brief due not later than 7/5/2016, Petitioner's Brief in Reply due not later than 9/3/2016.) (Valdez, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHN MICHAEL BEAMES,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
v.
RON DAVIS, Warden of San Quentin
State Prison,
DEATH PENALTY CASE
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FIRST
EXTENSION OF TIME
(Doc. No. 209)
Respondent.
16
17
No. 1:10-cv-01429-DAD-SAB
Before the court is a motion by respondent, through counsel Robert Gezi, to extend by
18
thirty days the current June 4, 2016 deadline for filing a brief responsive to the court’s February
19
4, 2016 order directing post-hearing briefing. (See Doc. No. 198.) Mr. Gezi states this extension
20
of time, his first, is necessary due to his responsibilities in other matters and scheduled absences
21
from the office.
22
Mr. Gezi represents that counsel for petitioner, Mr. Simon, does not object to the
23
requested extension provided the time for petitioner to file his reply brief is extended thirty days
24
from the current August 4, 2016 deadline due to Mr. Simon’s scheduled absence from the office.
25
Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is HEREBY ORDERED that respondent’s
26
unopposed motion for first extension of time (Doc. No. 209) is GRANTED such that
27
respondent’s brief responsive to the court’s February 4, 2016 order directing post-hearing briefing
28
shall be filed not later than July 5, 2016 and petitioner’s brief in reply shall be filed not later than
1
1
September 3, 2016. Thereupon, the matter shall be deemed submitted.
2
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 24, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?