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)

Download PDF
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?