IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 4, 2008
DERRICK N. RILEY, PETITIONER,
JAMES A. YATES, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(DOCUMENTS #18, #19, #20)
FORTY-FIVE DAY DEADLINE
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 9, 2008, June 13, 2008, and July 14, 2008, petitioner filed a motion to extend time to file objections to the findings and recommendations.
This is Petitioner's sixth request for an extension of time to file objections to the Findings and Recommendation which recommend dismissal on the ground that this action is barred by the statute of limitations, and the recommendation has been pending since November 26, 2007. The Court previously warned Petitioner that further extensions of time would not be granted unless upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances. (Court Doc. 17.) In this instance, Petitioner continues to contend that the lack of legal assistance and minimal law library time has resulted in his inability to prepare objections; however, Petitioner does not indicate what he has been doing to comply with the Court's previous orders. In addition, the Court is puzzled as to why Petitioner is in need of substantial legal research and assistance merely to respond to the recommendation for dismissal on the ground that the petition is barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances. However, in the interest of justice, the Court will grant Petitioner forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order in which to file objections to Findings and Recommendation, and no further extensions of time will be granted. Petitioner is advised that upon the expiration of the forty-five (45) day period, the recommendation will be submitted to the District Judge for review.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.