Schatz v. Hatton

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/19/2017 DENYING 17 Motion for Extension of Time. The matter is now under submission and no further briefing will be permitted. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN PAUL SCHATZ,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-02911 JAM GGH

v.

ORDER

SHAWN HATTON,

15

Respondent.

16
On February 24, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition filed by

17
18

Petitioner, who is appearing in pro se. ECF No. 8. On March 20, 2017 Petitioner sought an

19

extension of time to file a response to that Motion, ECF No. 11, which request was granted on

20

March 24, 2017 extending Petitioner’s time to April 24, 2017. ECF No. 12. On April 24, 2017

21

Petitioner filed an Opposition Memorandum. ECF No. 13. On May 4, 2017 Respondent

22

requested addition time to file a Reply, ECF No. 14, which request was granted on May 8, 2017.

23

ECF No. 15. On June 7, 2017 Respondent filed his Reply. ECF No. 16. The matter was then

24

placed under submission for review and decision by this court.
On July 7, 2017 Petitioner requested an extension of time to August 7, 2017 to file an

25
26
27
28

additional Response. ECF No. 17. The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7,1 however, recognizes
1

Where feasible and permissible, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to habeas corpus
actions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(4).
1

1

only a complaint (petition in this case), an answer, and a reply as permissible pleadings. Rule 12

2

allows a motion to be made in lieu of an answer. In this case Respondent filed the Motion to

3

Dismiss in lieu of the Answer which permitted Petitioner to Oppose, which he did in his

4

Opposition Memorandum found in ECF No. 13, and Respondent one opportunity to Reply to the

5

Opposition, which he did in ECF No. 16. On June 7, 2017 Respondent filed a Reply to that

6

Opposition. ECF No. 17. Under Eastern District of California Local Rule No. 230, this

7

limitation on Motion briefing is made clear: there may be a Motion, an Opposition and a Reply.

8

There is no additional pleading to be recognized until after the court resolves the pending, fully

9

briefed Motion.

10

Petitioner has now requested an extension of time to permit him to respond to

11

respondent’s Reply Memorandum. ECF No. 17. In light of the foregoing IT IS HEREBY

12

ORDERED that:

13

1.

14

DENIED;

15

2.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file an additional Memorandum is

The matter is now under submission and no further briefing will be permitted.

Dated: July 19, 2017
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2