Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00780/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00780-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
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

JAMES ARCEDIANO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF WRIGLEY, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-0780 AWI DLB HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND

DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE A

RESPONSE TO THE PETITION WITHIN

TWENTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

[Doc. 7]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 20, 2006. Petitioner

is challenging the BOP’s refusal to assess his eligibility for release to a Community Corrections

Center under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). On July 3, 2006, the Court directed Respondent to file a

response to the petition within sixty days from the date of service of that order. (Court Doc. 6.)

On July 11, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s July 3, 2006, order

to respond, and requests that the Court expedite the review of the petition based on the timeliness

of his claim. (Court Doc. 7.) 

Because Petitioner’s claim is time sensitive, the Court will grant Petitioner’s request for

reconsideration and expedite the review of the instant petition. Accordingly, Respondent’s

response to the instant petition is due within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this

order, and Petitioner’s traverse is due within ten (10) days from the date Respondent files his

Case 1:06-cv-00780-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 07/31/06 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

 Although Petitioner requests that Respondent file a response within ten days from the order resolving the 1

motion for reconsideration, because Respondent must obtain any and all necessary documents and review all relevant

case law, the Court finds that ten days is simply insufficient time for the preparation of a response. 

2

answer. The time provisions outlined herein supersede all dates outlined in the Court’s July 3, 1

2006, order; however, all the other provisions set forth in the Court’s July 3, 2006, order to

respond remain in full force and effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00780-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2