Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01309/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01309-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NERNELL DEVON BUSH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1309-H (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

vs. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

J. WALKER, Warden,

Defendant.

On June 13, 2011, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. (Doc. Nos. 1 & 2.) On June 16, 2011, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed the Petition because Petitioner did not name a proper

Respondent. (Doc. No. 4.) Petitioner was informed that if he wished to proceed with this

action he was required to file a First Amended Petition that named a proper Respondent on or

before August 22, 2011. (Id. at 3.)

On August 15, 2011, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition along with a motion for

stay and abeyance. (Doc. Nos. 6 & 7.) The First Amended Petition named a proper

Respondent, but it contained a single claim that had not been included in the original Petition. 

(Doc. No. 7.) The claim in the First Amended Petition did not indicate whether Petitioner’s

claim had been presented to the state supreme court. (Id. at 6.) On August 26, 2011, the Court

- 1 - 11cv1309

Case 3:11-cv-01309-H-WVG Document 14 Filed 05/10/12 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

dismissed the First Amended Petition without prejudice because it contained only an

unexhausted claim. (See Doc. No. 8 at 2) (citing Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154

(9th Cir. 2006)). The Court also denied Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance because it

was predicated on the Court staying the First Amended Petition while he exhausted his

unidentified claims. (Doc. No. 8 at 2.) 

On October 17, 2011, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition along with a motion

for stay and abeyance. (Doc. Nos. 9 & 10.) The Second Amended Petition also contained a

single unexhausted claim. (Doc. No. 9 at 6.) On October 19, 20122, the Court dismissed the

Second Amended Petition without prejudice because it contained only an unexhausted claim. 

(Doc. No. 11 at 3.) The Court also denied Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance because

it was predicated on an unexhausted claim. (Id.) 

The Court granted Petitioner until December 5, 2011 to file a Third Amended Petition

containing at least one unexhausted claim. (Id.) The Court notified Petitioner that failure to

file an amended petition before the deadline would result in dismissal of the action. In

addition, the Court informed Petitioner that failure to file an amended petition before the

deadline would require Petitioner to file a new habeas action if he wished to continue to pursue

any claim that he may have. (Id. at 3-4.) 

On April 19, 2012, more than four months after Petitioner’s deadline had expired,

Petitioner filed a motion for a 90 day extension of time to file a Third Amended Petition. 

(Doc. No. 13.) Petitioner states that the delay was caused by lack of access to his legal

paperwork. (Id.) In light of Petitioner’s representations concerning the cause for delay, the

Court grants Petitioner an extension of time. Petitioner may file a Third Amended Petition on

or before June 11, 2012. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2012

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

- 2 - 11cv1309

Case 3:11-cv-01309-H-WVG Document 14 Filed 05/10/12 Page 2 of 2