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)

Download PDF
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

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?