IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 12, 2012
ROBIN GILLEN STARR, PETITIONER,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner has filed a motion for extension of time to file and serve a "traverse" in this action. However, there is no authority for filing a traverse at this time. A petitioner may file a traverse only if the respondent filed an answer to the petition. See Rule 5, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, respondent filed a motion to dismiss petitioner's habeas petition (Dkt. No. 43), and petitioner timely filed an opposition (Dkt. No. 46). The only briefing that remains is respondent's optional reply brief. See Local Rule 230(l).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 47), is denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.