Cisneros v. Macomber

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING 20 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/24/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALEJANDRO CISNEROS,
Petitioner,

12

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION
TO DISMISS

v.

13
14

Case No. 1:15-cv-01716-EPG-HC

JEFF MACOMBER,

15

(ECF No. 20)

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 January 28, 2016, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the
19 basis of nonexhaustion. (ECF No. 18). On February 22, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant motion,
20 requesting the Court to stay ruling on the motion to dismiss until Petitioner receives a response
21 from his appellate lawyer regarding proof of exhaustion. (ECF No. 20). The Court construes the
22 instant motion as a request for extension of time to file a response to the motion to dismiss. See
23 Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-82 (2003) (courts may recharacterize a pro se motion
24 to “create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its
25 underlying legal basis”).
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1

1

Good cause having been presented to the Court,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner is granted to and including March 23, 2016, to

3 file the response to Respondent’s motion to dismiss.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6

Dated:

February 24, 2016

/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