McCoy v. Soto

Filing 31

ORDER GRANTING 29 30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to Findings and Recommendation signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/12/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY MCCOY, Petitioner, 12 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v. 13 14 Case No. 1:15-cv-01578-LJO-EPG-HC JOHN SOTO, 15 (ECF Nos. 29, 30) Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 29, 2017, the undersigned issued findings and recommendation to 19 grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 28). 20 On April 10, 2017, the Court received two motions from Petitioner. (ECF Nos. 29, 30). 21 Both contain requests for extensions of time so that Petitioner can obtain documents supporting 22 his equitable tolling claim. In light of the procedural posture of the case, the Court construes the 23 instant motions as motions for extension of time to object to the findings and recommendation. 24 See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-82 (2003) (courts may recharacterize a pro se 25 motion to “create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and 26 its underlying legal basis”). 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 Good cause having been presented to the Court, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner is granted to and including May 15, 2017, to 3 file his objections to the findings and recommendation. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 12, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?