From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. Runnels

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 23, 2006
No. CIV S-03-2505-FCD-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-03-2505-FCD-CMK-P.

August 23, 2006


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel and in forma pauperis, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner's fifth request for an extension of time (Doc. 50) to comply with the court's April 12, 2005, order.

Petitioner's four prior requests each sought an additional 60 days to comply. In the last such extension granted, the court stated that no further extensions would be granted. Nonetheless, petitioner now seeks an additional week — to August 28, 2006 — to comply. Specifically, counsel states that, on August 28, 2006, she will be filing on petitioner's behalf either: (1) an amended petition which contains only exhausted claims; or (2) an amended petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, along with a motion for a stay-and-abeyance order. Counsel states that the press of business in other matters necessitates the additional week.

The court is willing to give counsel the benefit of the doubt and will grant the requested additional week to comply. If counsel does not file an amended petition by August 28, 2006, however, counsel will be required to show cause why sanctions, including but not limited to dismissal of this action, should not be imposed for failure to comply with court orders and for lack of prosecution. See Local Rule 11-110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's fifth motion for an extension of time (Doc. 50) is granted;

2. On or before August 28, 2006, petitioner shall file either: (1) an amended petition which contains only exhausted claims; or (2) an amended petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, along with a motion for a stay-and-abeyance order; and

3. If no amended petition is filed by August 28, 2006, petitioner's counsel shall show cause, in writing, by September 5, 2006, why sanctions should not be imposed.


Summaries of

King v. Runnels

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 23, 2006
No. CIV S-03-2505-FCD-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2006)
Case details for

King v. Runnels

Case Details

Full title:DAVID L. KING, Petitioner, v. DAVID L. RUNNELS, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Aug 23, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-03-2505-FCD-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2006)