Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01829/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01829-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

DHS/ICE AND LORETTA LYNCH, 

Attorney General,

Respondents.

No. 1:15-cv-01829-DAD-SKO HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION 

OF EXTENSION OF TIME

(Docs. 33, 35, and 36)

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, moves for reconsideration of the Court’s April 19, 2016, order 

granting Respondent’s ex parte motion for a sixty-day extension of time in which to file the

response to the habeas petition. Petitioner contends that in seeking the extension of time, 

Respondents misrepresented the procedural status of the underlying immigration case, and 

suggests that the Court erred in failing to provide him with an opportunity to oppose the motion 

for extension of time. The Court declines to grant reconsideration.

According to the Local Rules:

The Court may, in its discretion, grant an initial extension ex parte

upon the affidavit of counsel that a stipulation extending time 

cannot reasonably be obtained, explaining the reasons why such a 

stipulation cannot be obtained and the reasons why an extension is 

necessary. Except for one such initial extension, ex parte

applications for extension of time are not ordinarily granted.

Local R. 144(c).

Case 1:15-cv-01829-DAD-SKO Document 38 Filed 05/10/16 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

2

Upon an apparent showing of good cause, initial motions for extensions of time in which to 

answer a petition are given to respondents in habeas cases as an ordinary practice since prisoners 

are generally not available to execute stipulations for time extensions. 

The time for response is not statutory but is set by the Court in its discretion. R. 5(e), 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. Particularly with an initial 

request for extension of time, the Court is generally indulgent to both respondents or petitioners 

who can articulate a reasonable basis for their need for additional time to complete and file a 

pleading. In the case of respondents in habeas cases, limited budgets and personnel, as well as 

the need to secure necessary information regarding the underlying case, weigh in favor extending 

time to allow a complete and accurate response to the habeas petition.

Requests for extensions of time do not lend themselves to resolution of substantive and 

procedural disputes regarding the underlying case. The Court declines to resolve the parties’ 

disagreements on the procedural status of the underlying immigration case until briefing in the 

habeas case has been completed, and the record has been lodged with the Court.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s extension of time for Respondents 

to file a response to the petition is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01829-DAD-SKO Document 38 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 2