From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Larshin v. Pickket

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 25, 2021
2:21-cv-0122 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-0122 JAM KJN P

08-25-2021

ANDREY LARSHIN, Petitioner, v. J. PICKETT, Respondent.


ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 16, 2021, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. Petitioner did not file a timely opposition, and on July 29, 2021, was directed to show cause why respondent's motion should not be granted. On August 16, 2021, petitioner filed his response to the order to show cause, and also included his opposition to the motion to dismiss. Therefore, the undersigned discharges the order to shows cause, finds that petitioner's opposition is timely, and grants respondent fourteen days from the date of this order in which to file a reply.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause (ECF No. 17) is discharged;
2. The Clerk shall edit docket entry ECF No. 18 to add “and opposition to motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15);” and
3. Respondent is granted fourteen days from the date of this order in which to file a reply.


Summaries of

Larshin v. Pickket

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 25, 2021
2:21-cv-0122 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2021)
Case details for

Larshin v. Pickket

Case Details

Full title:ANDREY LARSHIN, Petitioner, v. J. PICKETT, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 25, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-0122 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2021)