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)

Download PDF
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?