Munoz v. Marshall, et al

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/21/07 ORDERING petitioner's 3/30/07 request for extension of time 31 is DENIED as unnecessary. (Carlos, K)

Download PDF
(HC) Munoz v. Marshall, et al Doc. 34 Case 2:04-cv-01658-LKK-EFB Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. JOHN MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent. / Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. 2254. On March 1, 2006, the court ordered that this action be stayed and held in abeyance pending the outcome of petitioner's state court habeas proceedings. The court directed petitioner to notify this court of the California Supreme Court's decision within 30 days of its issuance. On March 30, 2007, petitioner requested an extension of time to notify the court that the California Supreme Court had resolved his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and to request the court to lift the stay imposed on March 1, 2006. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). With this request, petitioner filed a copy of the California Supreme Court's March 14, 2007, order denying his habeas petition. Filing that information necessarily provided the required notice and less than 30 days passed between the time the California Supreme Court denied relief and the time that petitioner 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MAURICIO R. MUNOZ, Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1658 LKK EFB P ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:04-cv-01658-LKK-EFB Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 notified the court of that decision. Therefore, petitioner has met the original deadline and does not need the additional time he requests. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that petitioner's March 30, 2007, request is denied as unnecessary. Dated: May 21, 2007. 2

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?