From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lawless v. Cates

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 7, 2022
1:22-cv-00523-JLT-EPG-HC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2022)

Opinion

1:22-cv-00523-JLT-EPG-HC

11-07-2022

KRISTOPHER WILLIAM LAWLESS, Petitioner, v. BRIAN CATES, Respondent.


ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF NO. 24)

Petitioner Kristopher William Lawless is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On June 21, 2022, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 14.) On July 1, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion for a 45-day extension of time to file an opposition. (ECF No. 16.) On July 5, 2022, the Court granted Petitioner the 45-day extension of time to file the opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 17.) On July 14, 2022, Petitioner filed an opposition. (ECF No. 19.) On July 21, 2022, Respondent filed a reply. (ECF No. 19.) On August 31, 2022, Petitioner filed a supplemental opposition. (ECF No. 21.) On October 26, 2022, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations to grant Respondent's motion to dismiss in part and allow Petitioner to proceed with his exhausted claim. (ECF No. 23.) The findings and recommendations were served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the findings and recommendations.

On November 4, 2022, the Court received the instant “Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition/Response,” in which Petitioner requests a 45-day “extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss due to lack of access to law library and currently on Covid19 restrictions lockdown.” (ECF No. 24 at 1.) However, as set forth above, Petitioner was already granted a 45-day extension of time to file his opposition and in fact filed an opposition and supplemental opposition, which the undersigned considered before issuing the findings and recommendations. Therefore, given the procedural posture of this case, the Court construes the motion as a request for an extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-82 (2003) (courts may recharacterize a pro se motion to “create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion's claim and its underlying legal basis”); Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (“the district court must construe pro se habeas filings liberally”).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner is GRANTED to and including January 16, 2023, to file objections to the findings and recommendations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Lawless v. Cates

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 7, 2022
1:22-cv-00523-JLT-EPG-HC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2022)
Case details for

Lawless v. Cates

Case Details

Full title:KRISTOPHER WILLIAM LAWLESS, Petitioner, v. BRIAN CATES, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 7, 2022

Citations

1:22-cv-00523-JLT-EPG-HC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2022)