Cosden v. State of Washington

Filing 33

ORDER granting 29 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, and the answer filed June 19, 2015 (Dkt. 31) will be considered timely. Signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.(CMG; cc to Petitioner)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 WILLIAM E. COSDEN, 11 12 Petitioner, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05739-BHS-JRC ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME v. 13 JEFFREY UTTECHT, 14 Respondent. 15 16 The District Court has referred this petition for a writ of habeas corpus to United States 17 Magistrate Judge, J. Richard Creatura. The authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) 18 (A) and (B), and local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4. Petitioner seeks relief from a 19 state conviction, thus, the petition is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 Respondent asks for a second extension until June 19, 2015 to file an answer to 21 petitioner’s amended habeas corpus petition (Dkt. 29). Counsel for respondent explains that he 22 had an unusually high number of deadlines recently and has not had sufficient time to review the 23 record and adequately respond to the issues raised by the petitioner (id.). In petitioner’s motion 24 to compel filed on June 12, 2015, he alleges that another extension may be prejudicial if he is not ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME - 1 1 allowed time to review the case files (Dkt. 30). Petitioner’s time to review the files begins when 2 respondent files an answer; therefore, petitioner will not be prejudiced. 3 Respondent shows good cause for the extension of time. The motion is granted and the 4 answer filed on June 19, 2015 (Dkt. 31) will be considered timely. 5 6 Dated this 23nd day of June, 2015. 7 A 8 J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME - 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?