Charity v. Brown et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/5/10 ORDERING that Petitioner's Motion to grant the petition 22 is DENIED. Respondent's MOTION for Extension of time 21 is GRANTED. The response to the petition is due on or before 1/21/2010. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
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. EDMUND BROWN, et al., Respondents. / On December 21, 2009, petitioner filed a motion requesting that his habeas corpus petition be granted. The grounds of this motion appear to be that respondent has not filed a timely answer. On October 6, 2009, the court granted respondent sixty days to file a response to the petition. On December 1, 2009, respondent filed a request for extension of time until January 21, 2010, to file the answer. Respondent has not failed to file a timely answer. In any event, respondent's failure to respond would not entitle petitioner to an order granting the petition. Respondent's December 1, 2009, request for extension of time has not yet been processed because respondent failed to submit by email a copy of the proposed order granting the request as required by Local Rule 137(b). Respondent's motion is granted but no further extensions of time to file the response will be allowed. 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TIMMY O'NEIL CHARITY, Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-1968 FCD GGH P 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 ch1968.mo Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner's motion to grant the petition (no. 22) is denied; 2. Respondent's motion for extension of time (no. 21) is granted; the response to the petition is due on or before January 21, 2010. DATED: January 5, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows ___________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?