Ault v. Spearman

Filing 16

ORDER Granting Petitioner's 15 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss; ORDER Denying Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/22/17. 30-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

JEFFERY CURTIS AULT,
Petitioner,

12
13
14
15

v.
M.E. SPEARMAN,
Respondent.

16

1:17-cv-00334 LJO-MJS (HC)
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
DISMISS
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Document# 15)

17
30-DAY DEADLINE

18
19
20

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254. On May 18, 2017, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss

22

the petition for lack of jurisdiction, failure to exhaust, and procedural default. (ECF No.

23

13.) On June 15, 2017, Petitioner filed a document styled, “Motion for Reconsideration

24

and For Extension of Time.” (ECF No. 15.) Therein, he sets forth various reasons he was

25

unable to exhaust his claims and argues that his failure to exhaust and/or procedural

26

default should be excused.

27

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be denied on the ground that he does

28

not identify the ruling he wishes reconsidered. The only rulings issued in this case

1

denied Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, authorized Petitioner to proceed

2

in forma pauperis, and ordered Respondent to respond. Petitioner’s arguments do not

3

address these points.

4

Petitioner’s request for extension of time is unclear. To the extent he intends to

5

ask the Court to excuse his untimely exhaustion of administrative or judicial remedies,

6

such arguments will be considered, if at all, in the ruling on the motion to dismiss. To the

7

extent he requests an extension of time to more fully oppose the motion, his request will

8

be granted.

9

Good cause having been found, Petitioner is HEREBY GRANTED thirty (30) days

10

from the date of service of this order in which to file a further opposition to the motion to

11

dismiss. Respondent may file a reply to the opposition and/or to the arguments

12

contained in the instant motion within seven (7) days of the date Petitioner’s opposition

13

is, or could have been, filed, whichever is earlier.

14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16

Dated:

June 22, 2017

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2