Starr v. State of California et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 47 Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/12/12. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ROBIN GILLEN STARR,
Petitioner,

11
12
13

No. 2:12-cv-0083 KJN P

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Respondents.

14

ORDER
/

15
16

Petitioner has filed a motion for extension of time to file and serve a “traverse” in

17

this action. However, there is no authority for filing a traverse at this time. A petitioner may file

18

a traverse only if the respondent filed an answer to the petition. See Rule 5, Federal Rules

19

Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, respondent filed a motion to dismiss

20

petitioner’s habeas petition (Dkt. No. 43), and petitioner timely filed an opposition (Dkt. No. 46).

21

The only briefing that remains is respondent’s optional reply brief. See Local Rule 230(l).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for an

22
23

extension of time (Dkt. No. 47), is denied.

24

DATED: December 12, 2012
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26

star0083.eot.wpd

1