Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02591/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02591-2/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMETRIUS SHAFFER,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-2591 JAM KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner requested a ninety day extension of time to file and serve a response to the 

court’s October 26, 2016 order to show cause, and an opposition to the July 6, 2016 motion to 

dismiss. Petitioner claims that he receives his legal mail a week late, and that because he is 

housed in a psychiatric service unit, he has limited access to the law library due to administrative 

difficulty. (ECF No. 13 at 2.) 

As explained in the October 25, 2016 order, the exhaustion of state court remedies is 

required. Review of state court records confirms that petitioner has not filed a petition for habeas 

corpus in the California Supreme Court.1 Thus, petitioner must demonstrate that he has 

exhausted his state court remedies as to all claims raised in the instant petition. If petitioner 

 

1

Petitioner’s only filing in the California Supreme Court is his direct appeal. People v. Shaffer, 

No. S222815, which was closed on January 28, 2015. California Courts Website, 

<http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov> (accessed November 17, 2016).

Case 2:15-cv-02591-JAM-KJN Document 14 Filed 11/18/16 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

cannot so demonstrate, he may pursue the options outlined in the October 25, 2016, such as filing 

a motion for stay, or he may opt to proceed solely as to those claims he has exhausted in the 

California Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s motion for extension of time is responsive to the court’s order to show cause; 

therefore, the order to show cause is discharged, and petitioner is relieved of any further 

obligation to respond to the order to show cause. However, petitioner must file an opposition to 

the motion to dismiss. While the court is sympathetic to petitioner’s limited law library access, 

respondent’s motion to dismiss was filed on July 6, 2016, and served on petitioner at Salinas 

Valley State Prison, Soledad, California, where petitioner remains housed. Petitioner has had 

four months to prepare an opposition. Thus, his request for an additional ninety days is 

unreasonable. In an abundance of caution, petitioner is granted up to and including January 10, 

2017, in which to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss. Moreover, petitioner is cautioned 

that failure to timely file such opposition will result in a recommendation that respondent’s 

motion to dismiss be granted, and that this action proceed solely on the claims presented to the 

California Supreme Court. No further extensions of time will be granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 13) is partially granted; and

2. Petitioner shall file and serve his opposition to the motion to dismiss on or before 

January 10, 2017. No further extensions of time will be granted. 

Dated: November 18, 2016

shaf2591.111.rev

Case 2:15-cv-02591-JAM-KJN Document 14 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 2