Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00482/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00482-5/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Mark Anthony,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-0482 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

John Marshall,

Respondent.

-oOoJuly 25, 2005, petitioner requested an extension of time to

serve and file a reply to the petition. August 17, 2005, I

granted petitioner a 30-day extension. October 11, 2005,

petitioner requested a second extension. Respondent filed no

opposition.

The court may grant petitioner an extension of time to file

and serve a reply if petitioner’s failure timely so to do

resulted from excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). To 

determine whether neglect is excusable, I must consider the 

Case 2:05-cv-00482-FCD-EFB Document 23 Filed 11/23/05 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

danger of prejudice to respondent, the length of the delay and

its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the

delay, including whether it was within plaintiff’s control, and

whether defendant acted in good faith. Committee for Idaho’s

High Desert, Inc., v. Yost, 92 F.3d 814, 825 & n.4. (9th Cir.

1996). Carelessness does not usually constitute excusable

neglect. See Kyle v. Campbell Soup Company, 28 F.3d 928, 929

(9th Cir. 1993) (stating inadvertence, ignorance of court rules

and misconstruction of court rules usually do not constitute

excusable neglect). 

Petitioner’s reply should have been filed by September 16,

2005, and so the delay is minimal. Petitioner’s address has

changed three times since July and he seeks an extension because

he lost access to his legal materials after the most recent move.

I find respondent will not be prejudiced, the delay is

minimal and will not impact these proceedings, it is unclear

whether the delay was within petitioner’s control and there is no

evidence petitioner is acting in bad faith.

Accordingly, petitioner’s October 11, 2005, request is

granted.

So ordered.

Dated: November 22, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00482-FCD-EFB Document 23 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 2