Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00559/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00559-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES S. BROWN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-00-0559 WBS JFM P

vs.

R. Q. HICKMAN, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with an application for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 3, 2005, petitioner filed a

motion for leave to conduct discovery and for an extension of time to file an amended petition. 

By order filed October 12, 2005, respondents were directed to respond within ten days to said

motion. On the same day, respondents filed a request for an extension of time to comply with

that order. Respondents point to the court’s September 13, 2005 order granting them a period of

thirty days to respond to any discovery motion filed by October 1, 2005.

The deadline set in the court’s October 12, 2005 order was predicated on

representations in petitioner’s October 3, 2005 motion that both counsel in this case had agreed

“that it would be more efficacious to file any amendments or supplements following the

completion of discovery as outlined above. . . .” (Petitioner’s Request to Conduct Discovery,

Case 2:00-cv-00559-MCE -JFM Document 63 Filed 10/24/05 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

 Respondents’ request sheds no light on whether they agree that the time for filing an 1

amended petition should be extended. The court will, nonetheless, extend that deadline.

2

filed October 3, 2005, at 3.) Although the motion was not presented as a stipulation of counsel,

the quoted language suggested the possibility that the parties had in fact agreed to the proposed

discovery. It appears from respondents’ request for extension of time that no agreement has been

reached about the scope of discovery. 

1

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ October 12, 2005 request for extension of time is granted;

2. Respondents’ shall file and serve a response to petitioner’s motion for

discovery on or before November 2, 2005; and

3. The deadline for filing an amended petition is vacated and will be reset

following disposition of petitioner’s discovery motion.

DATED: October 21, 2005. 

12

brow0559.ext2

Case 2:00-cv-00559-MCE -JFM Document 63 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 2