Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 25, 2009

DAVID CARLTON BROWN, PETITIONER,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER AND TO FILE LODGMENTS

Doc. No. 34

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 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.*fn1 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.*fn2 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.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.