From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Range v. Schomig

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Dec 1, 2010
2:03-cv-01608-RLH-PAL (D. Nev. Dec. 1, 2010)

Opinion

2:03-cv-01608-RLH-PAL.

December 1, 2010


ORDER


This closed habeas matter comes before the Court on petitioner's motion (#51) for an extension of time to file a Rule 60(b) motion. The motion will be denied. Rule 6(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[a] court must not extend the time to act under Rule[] . . . 60(b)." See also Hughes v. Idaho State Board of Corrections, 800 F.2d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 1986) (release of inmate who previously had helped petitioner did not provide cause to excuse a procedural default).

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner's motion (#51) for an extension of time to file a Rule 60(b) motion is DENIED.

DATED: December 1, 2010


Summaries of

Range v. Schomig

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Dec 1, 2010
2:03-cv-01608-RLH-PAL (D. Nev. Dec. 1, 2010)
Case details for

Range v. Schomig

Case Details

Full title:KINGSTON WONEGIE RANGE, Petitioner, v. JAMES M. SCHOMIG, et al. Respondents

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Dec 1, 2010

Citations

2:03-cv-01608-RLH-PAL (D. Nev. Dec. 1, 2010)