Brown v. Poulos et al

Filing 37

ORDER granting 34 Motion for enlargement of time to file answer and to file lodgments. Respondent's Answer shall be filed by April 3, 2009. Petitioner may file a Traverse by May 4, 2009. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 3/25/09. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(tkl)(jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a petitioner for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on January 2, 2008. (Doc No. 1.) On February 3, 2009, the court denied Respondent's motion to dismiss without prejudice to a "renewed motion to dismiss" addressing the merits of the Petition. (Doc. No. 33.) In that order, the court requested Respondent file several additional lodgments and set a filing deadline for both the motion and lodgments for March 20, 2009. The court clarifies a renewed motion to dismiss addressing the merits would constitute an Answer to the petition. Pending before the court is Respondent's motion for an enlargement of time to file the requested lodgments and the Answer. The court observes Respondent has already sought two extensions largely based on counsel's apparent inability to manage her workload, whereas Petitioner has sought none. Further, Respondent was given more than six weeks to comply with the current -1v. DAVID CARLTON BROWN, Petitioner, CASE NO. 08 CV 0017 JM (NLS) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER AND TO FILE LODGMENTS Doc. No. 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent.

08cv0017

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

court order, and as in the past, waited until late afternoon on the date the submissions were due to file the request for an extension. The current request again stems from counsel's time management problems, as well as eleventh-hour "technological issues" and "the unpredictable availability of staff for processing." (Doc. No. 34 at 2.) Despite these flimsy explanations, in the interest of addressing issues on their merits, the court GRANTS Respondent's request, but cautions Respondent that any further such requests will meet with disfavor without a strong showing of good cause. The additional lodgments requested by the court shall be filed no later than March 23, 2009.1 Respondent's Answer shall be filed no later than April 3, 2009. An Answer must comply with the instructions previously provided by the court. (See Doc. No. 7 at 2.) If Respondent files an Answer, Petitioner may file a Traverse to matters raised therein no later than May 4, 2009.2 Any traverse by Petitioner (a) shall state whether Petitioner admits or denies each allegation of fact contained in the answer; (b) shall be limited to facts or arguments responsive to matters raised in the answer; and (c) shall not raise new grounds for relief that were not asserted in the Petition. Grounds for relief withheld until the traverse will not be considered. No traverse shall exceed ten (10) pages in length absent advance leave of the court for good cause shown. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, this case shall be deemed submitted on the day following the date Petitioner's traverse is due. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 25, 2009 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge

The court observes Respondent lodged the additional documents on March 23, 2009. (Doc. No. 35.) Petitioner filed a "Traverse" on May 7, 2008 without there being an Answer on record. (Doc. No. 15.) The court construed that filing as an opposition to Respondent's first Motion to Dismiss. -208cv0017
2

1