Love v. Knipp

Full title: DANTE L. LOVE, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM KNIPP, Respondent.

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

Date published: Sep 14, 2015

2:14-cv-2817 JAM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2015)

Opinion

DANTE L. LOVE, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM KNIPP, Respondent. No. 2:14-cv-2817 JAM CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 14, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         On September 8, 2015, petitioner filed a document the court construes as a request for an extension of time to file an opposition to respondent's pending motion to dismiss.¹ Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1 In the motion, petitioner attempts to justify his delay in filing his opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss on the fact that he has appealed this court's denial of his request for the appointment of counsel to the Ninth Circuit. However, that is not a legitimate justification as the court's denial of petitioner's request for the appointment of counsel is not appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292.

         1. Petitioner is granted 30 days from the date of this order to file his opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss.

         2. Failure to file an opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss within 30 days will result in the court's August 25, 2015 findings and recommendations being submitted to the district court judge assigned to this case for decision.