From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whitfield v. Solis

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 15, 2006
No. CV F 04-5758 REC WMW HC, [Doc. 7], [Doc. 11] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2006)

Opinion

No. CV F 04-5758 REC WMW HC, [Doc. 7], [Doc. 11].

February 15, 2006


ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE DENYING REQUEST FOR DEFAULT


Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. On January 27, 2005, the court entered an order requiring Respondent to file a responsive pleading. The order required Respondent to either file an answer within 90 days or to file a motion to dismiss within 60 days.

On April 29, 2005, Respondent filed both a request to modify the briefing schedule and a motion to dismiss. In his request to modify the briefing schedule, Respondent requested an extension of time to file his motion to dismiss. The court overlooked that request by Respondent and failed to rule on it. In his request, Respondent explains that additional time was needed to file his motion to dismiss because of the need to obtain and then review Petitioner's 16 prior state habeas petitions. Good cause appearing, Respondent's request to modify the briefing schedule is HEREBY GRANTED NUNC PRO TUNC.

On May 13, 2005, Petitioner filed a request for entry of default. Respondent has not defaulted in this case, but rather has filed a motion to dismiss. The court has now granted Respondent an extension of time, nunc pro tunc, to file that motion. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for entry of default is HEREBY DENIED.

Petitioner has not responded to Respondent's motion to dismiss. Because of the court's responsibility in overlooking Respondent's motion to modify the briefing schedule, the court will now grant Petitioner an extension of time to file a response to the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Petitioner is HEREBY GRANTED twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order within which to file a response to Respondent's motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Whitfield v. Solis

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 15, 2006
No. CV F 04-5758 REC WMW HC, [Doc. 7], [Doc. 11] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2006)
Case details for

Whitfield v. Solis

Case Details

Full title:DAVID E. WHITFIELD, Petitioner, v. J. SOLIS, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 15, 2006

Citations

No. CV F 04-5758 REC WMW HC, [Doc. 7], [Doc. 11] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2006)