Franco v. Espinoza

Filing 31

ORDER CONSTRUING 30 Motion for Relief as Motion for Extension of Time; ORDER GRANTING Petitioner Extension of Time to File Objections; Thirty Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/21/2019. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIA ANTONIA FRANCO,

12
13
14

Petitioner,
v.

Respondent.

16

20

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OBJECTIONS
[THIRTY DAY DEADLINE]

17

19

ORDER CONSTRUING MOTION FOR
RELIEF AS MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME
[Doc. 30]

JANEL ESPINOZA, Warden,

15

18

No. 1:18-cv-00057-DAD-SKO (HC)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. She is represented in this action by Marc Eric Norton, Esq.
On June 6, 2019, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to deny the petition

21

with prejudice. (Doc. 29.) The parties were granted thirty days to file objections. Neither party

22

filed objections within the allotted time; however, on August 26, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion

23

for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. § 60(b). (Doc. 30.) Respondent did not file an

24

opposition.

25
26

DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

27

district court. In this case, a final order has not been entered. Therefore, the Court will construe

28

the motion for relief from judgment as a motion for extension of time.
1

1

In his motion, Counsel for Petitioner states that, for an unknown reason, he did not receive

2

a copy of the Findings and Recommendations. Counsel states that he was unable to locate a copy

3

of the Findings and Recommendations in any of his email folders; therefore, he believes he did

4

not receive the transmission. A review of the Court’s docket shows that a copy of the Findings

5

and Recommendations was transmitted on June 6, 2019, to Counsel’s two email accounts of

6

record. It is therefore unknown why Counsel did not receive the email. In light of the foregoing,

7

the Court finds good cause to grant an extension of time to file objections.

8

ORDER
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment

9
10

(Doc. 30) is CONSTRUED as a motion for extension of time, and Petitioner is GRANTED an

11

extension of time of thirty days from the date of service of this order to file objections. Further,

12

Respondent MAY FILE a reply to objections within ten after the date the objections are filed.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 21, 2019

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

.