From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gaxiola-Sanchez v. Holder

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 8, 2015
2:15-cv-0923 MCE DAD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2015)

Opinion


RICARDO GAXIOLA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. ERIC HOLDER, Respondent. No. 2:15-cv-0923 MCE DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 8, 2015

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 18, 2015, the court issued an order directing service of the petition on respondent. Respondent was therein ordered to file an answer or a motion to dismiss within 60 days, and petitioner was ordered to file either a traverse or an opposition thereto within 30 days thereafter. (ECF No. 5.)

         On May 29, 2015, petitioner filed a motion for a "60 to 90 day" extension of time "for the ongoing petition [he] filed recently, " on the grounds that he was "currently in transit." (ECF No. 7.) In his motion petitioner did not describe the deadline he was seeking to extend. Nevertheless, the court inferred that petitioner might be referring to his deadline to file an opposition or traverse. Because respondent had not yet filed a responsive pleading, on June 23, 2015, petitioner's motion for an extension of time was denied without prejudice; petitioner was also directed to file a notice of change of address with the court once he arrived at any new facility. (ECF No. 11.)

         The court's June 23, 2015 order, however, was returned as undeliverable. Pursuant to the policies of this court, petitioner was granted until September 8, 2015 to file a notice of change of address. Petitioner did not file a notice of change of address with the court. At the time he filed his initial habeas petition, petitioner was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Herlong, California ("Herlong FCI"). (See ECF No. 1.) The Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator website shows that petitioner is still currently located at Herlong FCI.

         On July 2, 2015, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the operative habeas petition. (ECF No. 12.) Because it may be that petitioner was temporarily transferred to another institution and did not receive the pending motion to dismiss, out of an abundance of caution, the court will grant petitioner an additional thirty days to file an opposition to respondents' pending motion to dismiss this action.

         Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Together with a copy of this order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve petitioner with a copy of the motion to dismiss filed at ECF No. 12.

         2. Petitioner is directed to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss, or a statement of non-opposition, within thirty days of service of this order. Petitioner's failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed due to petitioner's failure to prosecute and to abide by court orders.


Summaries of

Gaxiola-Sanchez v. Holder

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 8, 2015
2:15-cv-0923 MCE DAD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2015)
Case details for

Gaxiola-Sanchez v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:RICARDO GAXIOLA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. ERIC HOLDER, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 8, 2015

Citations

2:15-cv-0923 MCE DAD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2015)