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.

Michael Roy Johnson v. Hector A. Rios

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 6, 2010

MICHAEL ROY JOHNSON, PETITIONER,
v.
HECTOR A. RIOS,
RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

[Doc. 18]

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR JUDGMENT AND GRANTING ESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 305(b).

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus June 18, 2010 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On June 23, 2010, the petition was transferred to this Court.

On August 10, 2010, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the petition. Because Respondent failed to file a timely response to the petition, the Court issued an order to show cause on October 20, 2010. Just one day later, Petitioner filed a motion for judgment on the merits.

On November 9, 2010, Respondent filed a response to the order to show cause, along with a motion for an extension of time to file an answer. In the response, Respondent's counsel sets forth the procedure for assigning and calendaring incoming cases. Counsel declares that this case was "assigned to the Parole Commission for assistance with providing documentation to support respondent's position in its response to the § 2241 petition. [¶] Unfortunately, this matter was confused with another § 2241 petition by a petitioner who has the same last name of Johnson. At the time, our office was under the impression that only one Johnson case was open instead of two Johnson cases."

Because Respondent's counsel has demonstrated that the failure to respond to the Court's order was inadvertent and not intentional, the Court will discharge the Order to Show Cause, and Petitioner's motion judgment is DENIED. In addition, Respondent has demonstrated good cause for extending the time to file a response citing the failure to receive the documents necessary to prepare a response, and Respondent is granted twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order to file a response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

icido3

20101206

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



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.