Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05589/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05589-5/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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS HUERTA IBARRA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:04-CV-05589 OWW NEW (DLB) HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

[Doc. #59]

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented in this action by George A. Boyle, Esq.

On May 15, 2007, due to repeated failures to comply with the Court’s orders and time

deadlines, the undersigned issued an order vacating the July 14, 2004, order which had stayed the

petition. The undersigned further ordered that the case would proceed on the original petition with

the claims presented therein. 

On the same date and after the undersigned had signed the May 15 order, Petitioner filed an

amended petition. On May 21, 2007, Petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to file the

amended petition. Petitioner requests his untimely filing be excused because Petitioner’s counsel had

inadvertently calendared the due date of the amended petition. Even so, this does not explain the

other failures to meet court deadlines. Moreover, the amended petition is in direct contravention of

Case 1:04-cv-05589-OWW -GSA Document 62 Filed 06/27/07 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

the Court’s July 14, 2004, order granting stay. In that order, the Court granted a stay of the

proceedings so Petitioner could return to the state courts to exhaust his remedies with respect to the

two identified claims of jury misconduct and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. However, the

amended petition includes these two claims and three new claims. The Court was never alerted to

these three additional claims and the stay was not granted to exhaust these additional claims. 

For the above reasons, Petitioner’s request for extension of time to file an amended petition

and his motion to strike the Court’s May 15 order vacating the stay are hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 26, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05589-OWW -GSA Document 62 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 2