Bonilla v. Brazelton

Filing 25

ORDER Construing Petitioner's Supplemental Traverse and Request 24 to be (1) Objections to the Findings and Recommendations to Deny Petitioner's Motion for a Stay 21 and (2) a Motion to Amend the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER Scheduling Reply to the Objections and Briefing on the Motion to Amend, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/14/14.(Case Management Deadline: 30-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11 JULIO CESAR BONILLA,

Case No. 1:13-cv-01710-LJO-BAM-HC

12

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S
SUPPLEMENTAL TRAVERSE AND REQUEST
(DOC. 24) TO BE 1) OBJECTIONS TO
THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A STAY
(DOC. 21), AND 2) A MOTION TO AMEND
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS

13
14

Petitioner,
v.

15
16
17

PAUL D. BRAZELTON,
Respondent.

ORDER SCHEDULING REPLY TO THE
OBJECTIONS AND BRIEFING ON THE
MOTION TO AMEND

18
19

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
21 U.S.C. § 2254.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge

22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 through 304.
23

On September 15, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and

24 recommendations to deny Petitioner’s motion for a Rhines stay and to
25 have the previously suspended deadline for the filing of
26 Petitioner’s traverse be reset thereafter.

The findings and

27 recommendations were served on Petitioner on the same date, and they
28 informed Petitioner that objections could be filed no later than
1

1 thirty (30) days after service.

On October 9, 2014, Petitioner

2 filed his traverse and also filed a supplemental traverse with a
3 request to amend the petition to add additional claims set forth in
4 the supplemental traverse.

Petitioner stated that he would not file

5 objections because to do so would confuse the matter.

(Doc. 24, 5.)

6 It appears that Petitioner interpreted the findings and
7 recommendations as giving Petitioner the choice of filing either
8 objections or a traverse in 30 days.
9

(Id.)

In an effort to avoid inefficiency and further delay in

10 determining the underlying stay motion addressed in the findings and
11 recommendations, the Court CONSTRUES Petitioner’s supplemental
12 traverse and request to be 1) objections to the findings and
13 recommendations, and 2) a motion to amend the petition for writ of
14 habeas corpus.
15

Respondent may FILE a reply to the objections and shall FILE

16 opposition or notice of non-opposition to Petitioner’s motion to
17 amend the petition no later than thirty (30) days after the date of
18 service of this order.
19

Petitioner may file a reply to any opposition to the motion to

20 amend no later than thirty (30) days after the date of service of
21 any opposition.
22
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 14, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2