Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01208/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01208-6/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS EZERKIS, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

 v. )

 )

G.J. GIURBINO, Warden, et al., )

 )

 )

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:05-cv-1208-LJO-TAG HC 

 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE TRAVERSE

(Doc. 22)

Petitioner Thomas Ezerkis (“Petitioner”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2254. 

On November 26, 2007, respondents G.J. Giurbino, et al. (“Respondents”) filed an answer

to Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 18). On that same date, Respondents lodged

various documents, reporters’ transcripts, and clerks’ transcripts with the Court. (See Docs. 19, 20). 

Petitioner’s traverse, if any, was due thirty (30) days from the date Respondent’s answer was filed

with the Court, i.e., by December 26, 2007. (Doc. 11). 

On December 17, 2007, Petitioner filed a request for a 90-day extension of time to file a

response to the answer, i.e., a traverse. (Doc. 22). Petitioner indicated in that request that there is

only one law library at the prison where he is incarcerated, that the law library’s capacity is

approximately 20 people at one time, and that restrictions exist for the use of the law library, and he

“therefor requests an extension of 90 days to inable (sic) him to attempt to perfect a comprehensive

and intelligent response to the Attorney General’s filing.” Petitioner’s request does not specify how

the library’s capacity or restrictions affect him specifically, or how they prevent him from filing a

Case 1:05-cv-01208-LJO -JMD Document 24 Filed 12/26/07 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 2

timely traverse in this action. (Id.). The Court notes that 30 days have passed from the date

Respondent’s answer was filed to and including the date of this Order. Nevertheless, the Court has

also considered the length of Respondent’s answer and the accompanying number of pages of

lodged documents and transcripts, and finds that good cause exists to grant Petitioner an additional

30 days to file a traverse. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

 1. Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file a traverse (Doc.22), is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows: 

A. Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in

which to file a traverse; 

B. Petitioner’s request for a ninety (90) day extension of time to file a traverse is

DENIED; and 

2. No further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 26, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01208-LJO -JMD Document 24 Filed 12/26/07 Page 2 of 2