Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01696/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01696-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKIE A. MARTINEZ, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1696 DFL EFB P

vs.

FELKER, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion for an extension of time to file and serve a response to

the petition. The motion was filed beyond the time for filing a response. To obtain an extension

based on a late request, respondent must show excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). To

determine whether neglect is excusable, the court must consider the danger of prejudice to

petitioner, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for

the delay, including whether it was within respondents’ control, and whether respondents acted

in good faith. Committee for Idaho’s High Desert, Inc., v. Yost, 92 F.3d 814, 825 & n.4. (9th

Cir. 1996). Carelessness does not usually constitute excusable neglect. See Kyle v. Campbell

Soup Company, 28 F.3d 928, 929 (9th Cir. 1993) (stating that inadvertence, ignorance of court

rules and misconstruction of court rules usually do not constitute excusable neglect).

Case 2:06-cv-01696-AWT Document 11 Filed 10/10/06 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

2

The response to the petition should have been filed October 2, 2006, but

respondent filed a motion for additional time on October 4. The delay of two days, in light of the

early stage of these proceedings, does not appear to result in any significant prejudice. Whether

the delay is excusable is a closer question. Respondents’ counsel asserts he recently received the

documents he needs to formulate a response but offers no reason for not timely seeking an

extension. Despite this glaring omission, there is no evidence of bad faith and in the absence of

prejudice to petitioner, the request will be granted..

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondents’ October 4, 2006, application is

granted and respondents have 30 days from the date this order is served to file and serve a

response to the petition.

Dated: October 10, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01696-AWT Document 11 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 2