Cook v. Kernan et al

Filing 21

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION. Signed by Judge Alsup on 6/30/2016. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 WALTER JOSEPH COOK,III, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 No. C 15-06343 WHA Plaintiff, v. ORDER RE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION SCOTT KERNAN, Defendant. / In this habeas action, a previous order, issued by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, 16 ordered respondent Scott Kernant to respond to the instant habeas petition by April 4, 2016 17 (Dkt. No. 8). The case was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned judge and the 18 reassignment order stated that all briefing schedules and other deadlines remained unchanged 19 (Dkt. No. 12). Respondent failed to respond by the deadline and was subsequently ordered to 20 show cause why no response to the habeas petition had been filed. On May 20, 2016, 21 respondent explained that the failure to respond had been due to an oversight. That same day, 22 respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. On June 20, 2016, respondent withdrew the 23 motion to dismiss and asked the court for 60 days to file an answer to the petition. 24 25 26 27 28 A further delay of 60 days is not justified. By JULY 25, 2016, respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner an answer showing cause why a habeas corpus should not be 1 issued. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with 2 the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the answer. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: June 30, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 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?