Foss v. Martell

Filing 64

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 11/10/11 ordering that petitioner's motion to stay, which the court construes as a motion for extension of time, 61 is partially granted. Petitioner shall file a traverse, if any, on or before 12/15/11. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAYMOND CHRISTIAN FOSS, 11 Petitioner, No. 2:09-cv-3551 JAM JFM (HC) 12 vs. 13 MIKE MARTELL, Warden, 14 Respondent. ORDER 15 / 16 Petitioner initiated this action on December 23, 2009 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 § 2254. On June 4, 2010, respondent filed an answer and, on June 14, 2010, filed an amended 18 answer. Following multiple requests for extensions of time, petitioner’s traverse ultimately 19 became due on October 26, 2011. On October 11, 2011, petitioner filed the instant motion to 20 stay this case pending resolution of unrelated criminal charges in the state of Florida. See Doc. 21 No. 61. Petitioner asserts that he will be unable to file his traverse due to his transfer to Florida 22 to face criminal charges there. Respondent opposes this motion. 23 Upon review, the court construes petitioner’s motion to stay as a motion for 24 extension of time for 180 days. This motion will be partially granted. Petitioner is notified that 25 the court will begin consideration of this case on December 15, 2011. If he intends to file a 26 1 1 traverse, he shall do so on or before that date for consideration. Any traverse filed after that date 2 will not be considered by the court. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to stay, which 4 the court construes as a motion for extension of time, is partially granted. Petitioner shall file a 5 traverse, if any, on or before December 15, 2011. 6 DATED: November 10, 2011. 7 8 9 10 /014;foss3551.stay.eot 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?