Hernandez v. DHS/ICE, et al.

Filing 38

ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motions for Reconsideration of Extension of Time 33 , 35 , 36 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/9/16. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ,

11
12
13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.

No. 1:15-cv-01829-DAD-SKO HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF EXTENSION OF TIME

DHS/ICE AND LORETTA LYNCH,
Attorney General,
(Docs. 33, 35, and 36)
Respondents.

16
Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
17
18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, moves for reconsideration of the Court’s April 19, 2016, order
granting Respondent’s ex parte motion for a sixty-day extension of time in which to file the

19
response to the habeas petition. Petitioner contends that in seeking the extension of time,
20
Respondents misrepresented the procedural status of the underlying immigration case, and
21
suggests that the Court erred in failing to provide him with an opportunity to oppose the motion
22
for extension of time. The Court declines to grant reconsideration.
23
According to the Local Rules:
24
25
26
27
28

The Court may, in its discretion, grant an initial extension ex parte
upon the affidavit of counsel that a stipulation extending time
cannot reasonably be obtained, explaining the reasons why such a
stipulation cannot be obtained and the reasons why an extension is
necessary. Except for one such initial extension, ex parte
applications for extension of time are not ordinarily granted.
Local R. 144(c).
1

1

Upon an apparent showing of good cause, initial motions for extensions of time in which to

2

answer a petition are given to respondents in habeas cases as an ordinary practice since prisoners

3

are generally not available to execute stipulations for time extensions.

4

The time for response is not statutory but is set by the Court in its discretion. R. 5(e),

5

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. Particularly with an initial

6

request for extension of time, the Court is generally indulgent to both respondents or petitioners

7

who can articulate a reasonable basis for their need for additional time to complete and file a

8

pleading. In the case of respondents in habeas cases, limited budgets and personnel, as well as

9

the need to secure necessary information regarding the underlying case, weigh in favor extending

10

time to allow a complete and accurate response to the habeas petition.

11

Requests for extensions of time do not lend themselves to resolution of substantive and

12

procedural disputes regarding the underlying case. The Court declines to resolve the parties’

13

disagreements on the procedural status of the underlying immigration case until briefing in the

14

habeas case has been completed, and the record has been lodged with the Court.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s extension of time for Respondents

15
16

to file a response to the petition is hereby DENIED.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 9, 2016

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2