Corral v. Warden of Folsom State Prison
Filing
16
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/2/15 ORDERING that Petitioners motion for stay (ECF No. 15 ) is DENIED without prejudice; and Petitioner is granted 60 days from the date respondent files a responsive pleading in which to file either (a) a reply, if the responsive pleading is an answer; or (b) an opposition, if the responsive pleading is a motion. (Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DYLAN SCOTT CORRAL,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
v.
No. 2:14-cv-3007 KJN P
ORDER
WARDEN, FOLSOM STATE PRISON,
15
Respondent.
16
Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On June 15, 2015, petitioner
17
18
filed a motion to stay the instant case based on his housing in a mental health crisis bed.
19
Petitioner states he does not have access to “any legal documents,” and claims he should be
20
released in about two months. (ECF No. 15.)
At present, petitioner is not facing an imminent deadline. Rather, respondent is required
21
22
to file a responsive pleading on or before July 8, 2015. (ECF No. 12.) Thus, a stay of this action
23
is not warranted. However, because petitioner anticipates being housed in the mental health
24
facility for the next two months, the undersigned will grant petitioner an extension of time in
25
which to file his reply to the responsive pleading.
26
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
27
1. Petitioner’s motion for stay (ECF No. 15) is denied without prejudice; and
28
////
1
1
2. Petitioner is granted sixty days from the date respondent files a responsive pleading in
2
which to file either (a) a reply, if the responsive pleading is an answer; or (b) an opposition, if the
3
responsive pleading is a motion.
4
Dated: July 2, 2015
5
6
/corr3007.eot
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?