DAVIS v. MCNEIL
Filing
25
ORDER re 24 MOTION Renewing Objection on Respondent(s) 22 Fourth Request for Enlargement of Time, Including Motion Requesting Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 8/2/2011. (jws)
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
JAMES DAVIS,
Petitioner,
v.
CASE NO. 4:10-cv-544-MP-GRJ
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion Renewing Objection On
Respondent’s Fourth Request For Enlargement Of Time, Including Motion Requesting
Judgment On the Pleadings. (Doc. 24.) Petitioner argues that the Court should not
grant Respondent’s fourth motion for extension of time (Doc. 22) because Respondent
has failed to show good cause. Petitioner also asks the Court to grant judgment on the
pleadings in this case, presumably as a sanction for Respondent’s failure to respond to
the Petition.
The Court already has granted Respondent’s fourth motion for extension of time.
(Doc. 23.) While the Court is cognizant of the fact that several extensions of time have
been granted, under the circumstances presented by Respondent, there was sufficient
cause for granting the extension.
With respect to Petitioner’s request for judgment on the pleadings, a motion for
judgment on the pleadings is inapplicable to a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ
of Habeas Corpus By A Person in State Custody.
Page 2 of 2
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:
Petitioner’s Motion Renewing Objection On Respondent’s Fourth Request For
Enlargement Of Time, Including Motion Requesting Judgment On the Pleadings
(Doc. 24) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2011.
s/Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No: 4:10-cv-544-MP-GRJ
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?