Tamez v. Madden

Filing 11

ORDER Denying Respondent's 10 Motion for Extension of Time signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/07/2016. (Flores, E)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

RICHARD TREVINO TAMEZ,

5

Petitioner,

6
7

v.

No. 1:16-cv-01314-LJO-SKO HC
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden,

8

Respondent.

9

(Doc. 10)

Respondent Raymond Madden, by his attorneys, moves for a 30-day extension of time in

10
11

which to file his response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus in the above-captioned case.

12

Although Respondent indicates that Petitioner does not object to the requested time extension, the

13

parties do not submit a stipulation of extension of time. Nor does Respondent explain why he

14

requires additional time to file objections.

15
16
17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) provides that a court may extend time “for good
cause.” Petitioner has failed to articulate good cause for an extension of time in this instance.
Good cause not having been shown, the motion for an extension of time in which to file a

18
19

response to the petition for habeas corpus is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to Respondent’s

20

submitting a revised motion setting forth good cause for the grant of an extension.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:

November 7, 2016

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
1

.