Ault v. Spearman
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JEFFERY CURTIS AULT,
1:17-cv-00334 LJO-MJS (HC)
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254. On May 18, 2017, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss
the petition for lack of jurisdiction, failure to exhaust, and procedural default. (ECF No.
13.) On June 15, 2017, Petitioner filed a document styled, “Motion for Reconsideration
and For Extension of Time.” (ECF No. 15.) Therein, he sets forth various reasons he was
unable to exhaust his claims and argues that his failure to exhaust and/or procedural
default should be excused.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be denied on the ground that he does
not identify the ruling he wishes reconsidered. The only rulings issued in this case
denied Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, authorized Petitioner to proceed
in forma pauperis, and ordered Respondent to respond. Petitioner’s arguments do not
address these points.
Petitioner’s request for extension of time is unclear. To the extent he intends to
ask the Court to excuse his untimely exhaustion of administrative or judicial remedies,
such arguments will be considered, if at all, in the ruling on the motion to dismiss. To the
extent he requests an extension of time to more fully oppose the motion, his request will
Good cause having been found, Petitioner is HEREBY GRANTED thirty (30) days
from the date of service of this order in which to file a further opposition to the motion to
dismiss. Respondent may file a reply to the opposition and/or to the arguments
contained in the instant motion within seven (7) days of the date Petitioner’s opposition
is, or could have been, filed, whichever is earlier.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 22, 2017
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?