Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

WILLIAM A. PROCTOR, No. CIV S-96-1401-JAM-CMK

Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE

vs. ORDER

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, seeks a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion for

a further extension of time (Doc. 274) to file objections to the court’s May 15, 2007, findings and

recommendations. 

On January 28, 2008, the court issued an order setting a schedule for the

remainder of Phase III of this litigation. That order provided, among other things, that the

parties’s objections to the May 15, 2007, findings and recommendations be filed by April 30,

2008, and that responses thereto be filed by June 30, 2008. On April 23, 2008, petitioner sought

a 60-day extension of the April 30, 2008, deadline to file objections. The court granted the

request in part, permitting petitioner to file objections by May 30, 2008. The court stated that

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 277 Filed 06/16/08 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

further request for an extension of the deadline to file objections would be disfavored. 

On May 11, 2008, petitioner requested a further extension of time. Specifically,

not only did petitioner seek the original 60-day extension, he sought an additional 30 days, for a

total extension of time of 90 days from the original April 30, 2008, deadline. While at the time it

was clear that respondents had no objection to a 60-day extension, it was not clear whether

respondents agreed to a 90-day extension of time. The court granted the request in part,

permitting petitioner to file objections by June 30, 2008. Again, the court stated that further

request for an extension of the deadline to file objections would be disfavored.

Petitioner now seeks a further extension of time to July 30, 2008, to file

objections and states that respondents agree to this extension. Because the request for an

extension to July 30, 2008, is unopposed, the request will be granted. Based on the

representations made by counsel in their current request, the court expects that no further

extension of time will be necessary. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request for a further extension of time (Doc. 274) to file

objections to the court’s May 15, 2007, findings and recommendations is granted;

2. Objections are due by July 30, 2008; and

3. Responses to objections are due by September 30, 2008.

DATED: June 13, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 277 Filed 06/16/08 Page 2 of 2