From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spencer v. Castro

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 29, 2006
No. CIV S-05-2456 GEB EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-05-2456 GEB EFB P.

August 29, 2006


ORDER


On June 19, 2006, petitioner filed a request for appointment of counsel. On July 28, 2006, the court denied the request without prejudice. Petitioner seeks an extension of time to file and serve a "response" to the court's July 28, 2006, order. The court construes "response," as "motion for reconsideration."

If no party seeks reconsideration of a magistrate judge's ruling within ten court days from the date the ruling is served on the parties, the ruling becomes final. L.R. 72-303(b).

Giving petitioner the benefit of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), petitioner filed his request August 20, 2006. Petitioner filed his request after the court's order was final.

Petitioner's August 23, 2006, motion for an extension of time therefore is denied.

So ordered.


Summaries of

Spencer v. Castro

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 29, 2006
No. CIV S-05-2456 GEB EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2006)
Case details for

Spencer v. Castro

Case Details

Full title:THURMAN LEROY SPENCER, Petitioner, v. ROY CASTRO, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Aug 29, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-05-2456 GEB EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2006)