Vogelsang v. Knipp

Full title: GREGORY LEE VOGELSANG, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM KNIPP, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 9, 2013

No. 2:12-cv-0539 GEB EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:12-cv-0539 GEB EFB P

01-09-2013

GREGORY LEE VOGELSANG, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM KNIPP, Respondent.

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 15, 2012, respondent was ordered to file a response to the petition within 60 days. Dckt. No. 9. On December 17, 2012, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Dckt. No. 17. On December 19, 2012, petitioner filed a motion for default judgment. Dckt. No. 18. Petitioner has also filed requests for extensions of time to file a traverse and an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Dckt. Nos. 19, 20.

Petitioner timely filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 3, 2013. Dckt. No. 22. Accordingly, his motion for an extension of time to file an opposition is denied as unnecessary. Further, because respondent's motion to dismiss is currently pending, there presently is no filing deadline for submitting a traverse. Should the petition survive respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner will be provided 30 days after the filing of any answer to file and serve a traverse. Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file a traverse is therefore denied as unnecessary.

Petitioner has also filed a motion for discovery. Dckt. No. 8. The court has not yet reviewed petitioner's claims in detail. Indeed, respondent has until January 10, 2013, to file a reply to petitioner's opposition. Furthermore, petitioner's motion for default judgment has yet to be resolved. Therefore, petitioner's motion for discovery is denied without prejudice to renewal after the court has resolved respondent's motion to dismiss and petitioner's motion for default judgment.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's request for an extension of time to file a traverse, Dckt. No. 19, is denied as unnecessary;

2. Petitioner's request for an extension of time to file an opposition, Dckt. No. 20, is denied as unnecessary; and

3. Petitioner's motion for discovery, Dckt. No. 8, is denied without prejudice.

_________________________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE