From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Contreras v. Davis

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 16, 2021
1:19-cv-01523-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2021)

Opinion

1:19-cv-01523-AWI-SAB

06-16-2021

JORGE CONTRERAS, Petitioner, v. RONALD DAVIS, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Respondent.[1]


ORDER PROVIDING FURTHER SCHEDULING

The Court, having granted Petitioner's motion to further equitably toll the limitations deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 for the filing of his federal habeas petition in this action to December 9, 2021 (see ECF No. 74), finds good cause to modify case scheduling.

Accordingly, Respondent shall file either a responsive pleading to the federal petition other than an answer, or an answer to the federal petition including all substantive and procedural defenses, argument and points and authorities, by not later than six (6) months following filing of the federal petition. If Respondent files any responsive pleading other than an answer, then Petitioner shall file his opposition by not later than three (3) months following filing of the responsive pleading, with Respondent filing his reply by not later than one (1) month following filing of Petitioner's opposition. Otherwise, Petitioner shall file any reply to the answer by not later than six (6) months following filing of Respondent's answer.

The parties are advised that the Court will view any request to extend the above timeline with disfavor absent reasonably unforeseeable and unavoidable circumstances showing good cause for an extension of time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Contreras v. Davis

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 16, 2021
1:19-cv-01523-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2021)
Case details for

Contreras v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:JORGE CONTRERAS, Petitioner, v. RONALD DAVIS, Warden of San Quentin State…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 16, 2021

Citations

1:19-cv-01523-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2021)