Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00767/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00767-8/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

REISH CARL ELLIS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0767 MCE EFB P

vs.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On February 27, 2008, petitioner generally requested an extension of time to file

and serve objections to the February 15, 2008 findings and recommendations, recommending

dismissal of the petition, denying petitioner’s motion to stay and abey, and ordering petitioner to

file an amended petition within 30 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Petitioner filed an amended

petition on February 19, 2008.

In his request for an extension of time, petitioner states that he was transferred from

Folsom State Prison to High Desert State Prison and, due to his recent transfer he is still in

“orientation” and without his legal documents or access to the law library. The request does not

explain what plaintiff has done thus far to draft and file objections or what the basis of any

objections might be. Accordingly, the request for an extension of time is denied. However, if

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MCE -EFB Document 37 Filed 03/21/08 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

petitioner can later demonstrate that he was, in fact, materially deprived by the transfer of the

fourteen days he otherwise would have been allowed to file objections, petitioner may seek relief

from this order upon a showing of good cause. In that regard, it is noted that the purpose of the

objection period is not for petitioner to file the brief in support of stay and abeyance in the first

instance. Rather, petitioner’s opportunity to do was during the briefing schedule on that motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s February 27, 2008, request for

extension of time is denied.

DATED: March 21, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MCE -EFB Document 37 Filed 03/21/08 Page 2 of 2