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.

Harvey Eugene Larson v. Carrasco

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 3, 2011

HARVEY EUGENE LARSON,
PETITIONER,
v.
CARRASCO, WARDEN, ET AL.
RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge

SCHEDULING ORDER

Petitioner Harvey Eugene Larson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(d). Subsequently, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the Petition be dismissed. For the reasons stated in the August 23, 2010 order, the Report and Recommendation was adopted in part and remanded in part to the Magistrate Judge. After remand, the Magistrate Judge has issued the Second Report and Recommendation on Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the "Second Report and Recommendation").

Petitioner has a right to object to the Second Report and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Accordingly, no later than January 28, 2011 Petitioner may file and serve objections, if any, to the Second Report and Recommendation. However, based on Petitioner's habit of including new legal theories of statute of limitations tolling with each opportunity he has to address the court, as stated in the August 23, 2010 order and reiterated in the Second Report and Recommendation, in the absence of showing of good cause, the Court is not inclined to consider Petitioner's objections to the extent they are based on new evidence or argument.

Any reply to Petitioner's objections shall be filed and served no later than February 11, . The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of this order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

COPY TO: HON. PETER C. LEWIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

2 09cv745

20110103

© 1992-2011 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.