Tanner v. Sherman

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/20/2017 GRANTING 42 Motion for Extension. Petitioner shall file his opposition to respondent's 36 renewed motion to dismiss on or before 1/8/2018. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

FREDERICK TANNER,

13
14

Petitioner,
v.

15

STU SHERMAN, Warden,
16
17
18

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-0581-GEB- KJN (HC)
ORDER
Judge: Honorable Kendall J. Newman,
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel. On November 15, 2017,
petitioner filed a second motion for extension of time in which to oppose the pending motion to

22

dismiss. Respondent does not object to the extension.
23
24

However, respondent’s motion to dismiss was filed on June 30, 2017, and on July 31,

25

2017, petitioner was granted a lengthy extension of time, until November 22, 2017, in which to

26

file his opposition. Petitioner’s counsel seeks a further extension of time until January 8, 2018,

27

due to petitioner’s transfer to RJ Donovan Correctional Facility due to medical issues.

28
1

1
2
3
4

Petitioner’s counsel does not indicate whether he is precluded from speaking with petitioner due
to such medical issues, but counsel states that he needs to discuss several issues with petitioner
before filing his opposition.1
In an abundance of caution, petitioner’s request is granted.

5
6

However, petitioner is

cautioned that no further extensions of time will be granted.

7

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. Petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 42) is granted; and

9

2. Petitioner shall file his opposition to respondent’s renewed motion to dismiss on or

10
11

before January 8, 2018.

12

Dated: November 20, 2017

13
14
15

/tann0581.eot

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Petitioner is cautioned that if certain claims are not exhausted, he should pursue such claims in state court without
delay. Petitioner is not required to await resolution of the pending motion before returning to state court to properly
exhaust his state court remedies.
2