Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01287/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01287-1/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

ALFRED ANTHONY RICO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-01287 AWI SMS HC

ORDER VACATING SUMMONS ISSUED

ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

[Doc. #4]

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE RESPONSE

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

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented in this action by Rich Pfeiffer, Esq.

On September 20, 2006, a Summons was signed and issued by the Clerk of Court which

required Respondent to serve an answer to the complaint within 20 days of the date of service of the

summons. The Summons was not presented to or authorized by the undersigned. 

In a habeas action, the petition is first forwarded to a judge for review. See Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If following a preliminary review the petition is not dismissed,

the judge must order the respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response withing a fixed

time. Id.(emphasis added). Here, the petition was forwarded to the undersigned. Following a

preliminary review, an order directing Respondent to file a response was issued on September 22,

2006. The deadline for filing a response was set for December 27, 2006. To date, no response has

Case 1:06-cv-01287-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 01/25/07 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

been filed by Respondent. Although Respondent has not explained why a response has not yet been

filed, in light of the conflicting Order and Summons, it is likely Respondent was confused on the

correct deadline. 

Accordingly, the Summons of September 20, 2006, is VACATED. Respondent is

GRANTED an extension of time of thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01287-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2