Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06155/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06155-4/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 On June 5, 2006, this action was reassigned to the undersigned due to the senior status of Judge Robert E. 1

Coyle. (Court Doc. 43.) 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE FLOYD,

Petitioner,

v.

A.K. SCRIBNER,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 03-6155 OWW DLB HC

ORDER VACATING ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

VACATING ENTER OF JUDGMENT, AND

GRANTING PETITIONER SIXTY DAY

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

OBJECTIONS

[Docs. 40, 41, 42]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

1

On April 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

recommending that the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. The

Recommendation stated that any objections were due within thirty days from the date of service. 

Petitioner did not file timely objections. Therefore, the Findings and Recommendations were

adopted in full and judgment was entered in favor of Respondent on May 31, 2006. (Court Docs.

40, 41.)

However, on May 30, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file

Case 1:03-cv-06155-OWW -DLB Document 44 Filed 06/19/06 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

 Pursuant to the Findings and Recommendations, objections were due on or before May 22, 2006. 

2

Although Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time was filed on May 30, 2006, it was dated May 21, 2006, and

under the mailbox rule is deemed filed as of that date. 

2

objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Court Doc. 42.) 2

As is apparent from the Court’s docket entries, the order adopting the Findings and

Recommendations was entered in the docket system prior to the entry of Petitioner’s motion for

an extension of time. Accordingly, the Court will vacate the order adopting the Findings and

Recommendation and entry of judgment, and grant Petitioner a sixty day extension of time. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order adopting the Findings and Recommendations and entry of judgment,

filed May 31, 2006, are VACATED; and

2. Petitioner is granted sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order to file

objections to the Findings and Recommendations.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06155-OWW -DLB Document 44 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2