Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01445/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01445-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK N. RILEY,

Petitioner,

vs.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent. 

________________________________/

1:07-cv-01445-LJO-SMS (HC)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S 

MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(DOCUMENTS #18, #19, #20)

FORTY-FIVE DAY DEADLINE 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On June 9, 2008, June 13, 2008, and July 14, 2008, petitioner filed a motion to

extend time to file objections to the findings and recommendations. 

This is Petitioner’s sixth request for an extension of time to file objections to the

Findings and Recommendation which recommend dismissal on the ground that this action is

barred by the statute of limitations, and the recommendation has been pending since November

26, 2007. The Court previously warned Petitioner that further extensions of time would not be

granted unless upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances. (Court Doc. 17.) In this

instance, Petitioner continues to contend that the lack of legal assistance and minimal law

library time has resulted in his inability to prepare objections; however, Petitioner does not

indicate what he has been doing to comply with the Court’s previous orders. In addition, the

Court is puzzled as to why Petitioner is in need of substantial legal research and assistance

merely to respond to the recommendation for dismissal on the ground that the petition is barred

Case 1:07-cv-01445-LJO -SMS Document 21 Filed 08/05/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

by the statute of limitations. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate extraordinary

circumstances. However, in the interest of justice, the Court will grant Petitioner forty-five

(45) days from the date of service of this order in which to file objections to Findings and

Recommendation, and no further extensions of time will be granted. Petitioner is advised that

upon the expiration of the forty-five (45) day period, the recommendation will be submitted to

the District Judge for review. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01445-LJO -SMS Document 21 Filed 08/05/08 Page 2 of 2