Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02624/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02624-2/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

RAYMOND THOMAS PARHAM, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2624 GEB GGH P

vs.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Pursuant to the court’s order, filed on January 31, 2007, respondent filed an

answer to the petition filed herein. On April 25, 2007, petitioner filed his reply/traverse to the

answer. Application of the mailbox rule renders the filing date as April 22, 2007, which still

indicates that petitioner’s reply was overdue. Nonetheless, petitioner now asks that he be

allowed a 60-day extension to file an amended reply. In addition, petitioner asserts that he has

not received sections IX (9) through XI (11) of the answer. As to the latter point, it does not

appear that there are any such sections, but that respondent has simply mis-numbered the last

section, preceding the supporting memorandum of points and authorities, as paragraph XII. The

answer filed in court demonstrates a leap from section VII on the bottom of page 2 to section XII

at the top of page 3. In other words, petitioner has misconstrued a typographical error of Roman

numerals as indicative of portions of the answer that are missing. Therefore, there is no ground

Case 2:06-cv-02624-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 05/14/07 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

for an extension based on this contention.

Because, however, petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a 28 U.S.C. §

2254 application for a writ of habeas corpus, the court will grant petitioner an extension of time

of 60 days to file an amended reply/answer. No further extension of time will be granted. 

Should petitioner fail to file an amended reply in conformance with the time set forth by this

order, the matter will be deemed submitted on petitioner’s April 25, 2007, original response.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s May 2, 2007, request for a 60-day extension to file an amended

reply/traverse is granted;

2. Petitioner is granted 60 days from the date of this order to file an amended

reply/traverse;

3. Failure to file an amended reply/traverse within the time set forth herein will

result in the court’s deeming the matter submitted on the original April 25, 2007, response; and

4. There will be no further extension of time.

DATED: 5/14/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

parh2624.eot

 

Case 2:06-cv-02624-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 2