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.

Robert W. Washington v. D. G. Adams

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 18, 2011

ROBERT W. WASHINGTON, PETITIONER,
v.
D. G. ADAMS,
RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Agistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. 35)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE (Doc. 36) THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On September 13, 2010, after the Answer had been filed, Petitioner filed his Traverse, in which he contended that Respondent had failed to respond to certain of Petitioner's allegations. (Doc. 30). On September 1, 2010, Respondent sought leave to file a sur-reply that included answers to the additional claims. (Doc. 31). On September 13, 2010, the Court granted Respondent's motion and directed Respondent to file an Answer to the additional claims within sixty days. (Doc. 32). At that point, Respondent's answer was due on or before November 15, 2010. Respondent filed the Answer to the additional claims on November 12, 2010. (Doc. 34). On November 17, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion to impose sanctions on Respondent for his failure to timely file the Answer to the additional claims. (Doc. 35). On December 22, 2010, Petitioner asked for an extension of time to file his Traverse to the Answer filed on November 12, 2010. (Doc. 36). Petitioner has yet to file his Traverse.

From the foregoing chronology, it is obvious that Petitioner's motion for sanctions is groundless: Respondent filed the supplemental Answer on November 12, 2010, well before the November 15, 2010 due date. Thus, that motion must be denied.

More troubling, however, is Petitioner's utter silence in the months since these events transpired. Petitioner has not filed his Traverse nor has he sought additional time to file such a Traverse. Nevertheless, in an excess of caution, the Court will grant Petitioner one, thirty-day extension of time within which to file his response to the supplemental Answer. No further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances beyond Petitioner's control.

ORDER

Good cause having been presented to the court and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's motion for sanctions (Doc. 35), is DENIED; and, 2. Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a Traverse to the supplemental Answer (Doc. 36), is GRANTED. Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which to file his traverse. No further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110518

© 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.