Peterson v. Lizarraga

Filing 28

ORDER Discharging Order to Show Cause; ORDER Granting 30 Day Extension of Time signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 01/08/2018. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
RICHARD ANTHONY PETERSON,

No. 1:17cv-01537-LJO-SKO HC

12
Petitioner,
13
v.

ORDER DISCHARGING
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

14
JOE LIZARRAGA, Warden of MCSP,
15
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING 30 DAY
EXTENSION OF TIME

16
(Doc. 25)
17
18
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
19
20

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 4, 2018, this Court ordered Respondent to show cause within

21

fifteen days why he should not be sanctioned for failure to file an answer to the petition. The

22

order provided that the Court would consider Respondent’s filing of the answer to be an

23

appropriate response.

24
25

On January 5, 2018, Respondent advised the Court that on December 29, 2017, he filed a
motion for a 30-day extension of time; however, Respondent filed the motion using the case’s

26
27
28
1

1

original case number, 2:17-cv-01693.1 This case was transferred from the Sacramento Division

2

of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to this Court on

3

November 17, 2017. All further submissions should be filed under case number 1:17-cv-01537.

4
Respondent declares in his motion for 30-day extension of time that due to the press of
5
6
7

business he requires additional time to prepare a response. Respondent has shown good cause for
an extension of time.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

8
9

1. The order to show cause issued January 4, 2018, (Doc. 25), be discharged.

10

2. Respondent is DIRECTED to file his response by January 29, 2018.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Respondent contends that the Court concluded “reasonably, but mistakenly, that Respondent had failed to respond
to the petition or seek an application for an extension of time within the allotted time.” (Doc. 26 at 3.) Respondent is
responsible for the management of his own case, including ensuring that documents are filed with the appropriate
court, following the transfer of the case from the Sacramento division to the Fresno division of this district .

2