Johnson v. Matevousian
Filing
22
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 13 AND MOTION TO COMPEL 17 signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/2/2017. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MICHAEL ROY JOHNSON,
11
12
13
14
Petitioner,
v.
ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, Warden
Respondent.
15
Case No. 1:16-cv-01304-MJS (HC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT
(ECF NO. 13)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
(ECF NO. 17)
16
17
18
19
20
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
21
Petitioner filed his petition on September 6, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On September 7,
22
2017, Respondent was ordered to file an answer. (ECF No. 4.) Respondent sought an
23
extension of time. (ECF No. 9.) Although Petitioner opposed the request (ECF No. 12), it
24
was granted (ECF No. 10). Respondent’s time to file an answer was extended to
25
January 6, 2017.
26
On December 27, 2016, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Judgment” (ECF No. 13), in
27
which he argued that he is entitled to judgment because he had opposed Respondent’s
28
1
motion for extension of time and Respondent had not yet answered.
2
On January 6, 2017, Respondent filed an answer. (ECF No. 14.)
3
On January 13, 2017, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Compel” (ECF No. 17), asking
4
the Court to require Respondent to answer. Petitioner later filed his traverse on March 9,
5
2017. (ECF No. 20.)
6
Respondent filed an answer within the time required by the Court. Accordingly,
7
there is no basis for granting the relief Petitioner seeks. The motions will therefore be
8
denied. The Court will address the merits of the petition in due course.
9
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
10
1. The motion for judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED; and
11
2. The motion to compel (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 2, 2017
/s/
15
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?