Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01574/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01574-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IGNACIO CEJA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1574 MCE GGH P

vs.

WARDEN, KERN VALLEY STATE

PRISON, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, represented by counsel, proceeds on an application pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. By Order, filed on September 14, 2007, respondent was directed to show cause,

within ten days for the failure to properly notice respondent’s motion to dismiss, originally filed

on August 23, 2006, or, in the alternative, for the failure to file an answer, in accordance with the

court’s August 1, 2006, order. Respondent responded timely, by filing dated September 21,

2007, and has made a showing adequate to discharge the show cause order. Respondent

separately noticed, by filing also dated September 21, 2007, the motion to dismiss, originally

filed on August 23, 2006, for hearing on October 18, 2007. 

Notwithstanding the timelines set forth in this court’s August 1, 2006, order, in

light of the length of time for which petitioner’s counsel must have been aware of the motion 

Case 2:06-cv-01574-MMM Document 11 Filed 09/27/07 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

2

originally filed, although not properly noticed, in August of 2006, the court herein sets forth the

schedule for the remaining briefing.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Respondent, by filing dated September 21, 2007, has discharged the show

cause order, filed on September 14, 2007;

2. Petitioner’s opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss, originally filed on

August 23, 2006, must be filed by no later than October 4, 2007;

3. Respondent’s reply, if any, is due by October 11, 2007;

4. In light of the length of time the motion to dismiss has been pending, any

request for extension of time or continuance of the hearing is most unlikely to be favored.

DATED: 9/27/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

ceja1574.dsc

Case 2:06-cv-01574-MMM Document 11 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 2