Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401-26/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-RRB-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

an extension of time (Doc. 264) 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. Petitioner seeks a 60-day extension

of the April 30, 2008, deadline to file objections. 

/ / /

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 265 Filed 04/25/08 Page 1 of 3
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

Presumably, petitioner will seek reconsideration of the portion of the scheduling 1

order setting a schedule for further merits briefing of Claims W, Y, CC, EE, and NN. 

In the second request for an extension of time to seek reconsideration of the 2

scheduling order, petitioner, through counsel, states for the first time that “counsel may need to

seek additional time to complete the objections to the findings and recommendations. . . .” 

2

The court notes that petitioner has recently been granted several extensions of

other deadlines in this case. Specifically, the court has granted the following extensions: (1) on

February 13, 2008, the court granted petitioner a 60-day extension of time to seek reconsideration

of the court’s January 22, 2008, budget order; (2) on February 21, 2008, the court granted

petitioner a 60-day extension of time to seek reconsideration of the court’s January 28, 2008,

scheduling order; (3) on April 7, 2008, the court granted petitioner a further extension of 30 days 1

to seek reconsideration of the budget order; and (4) on April 15, 2008, the court granted

petitioner a further extension of 45 days to seek reconsideration of the scheduling order. In the

requests for each of these extensions, petitioner, through appointed counsel, repeatedly

represented to the court that “[t]his request for an extension of time will not delay the remainder

of the proceedings or the briefing schedule established by this Court in its January 28, 2008,

scheduling order.” 

2

Given the repeated representations by counsel that the various extensions granted

to date will not delay briefing of matters outlined in the scheduling order, including filing of

objections to the May 15, 2007, findings and recommendations and responses thereto, and given

that the findings and recommendations were issues almost a year ago, the instant request for an

extension of time is not well taken. However, because the request is unopposed by respondents’

counsel, it will be granted, in part. The deadlines pertaining to objections to the May 15, 2007,

findings and recommendations will be extended by 30 days. The parties may file objections by

May 30, 2008, and responses thereto by July 30, 2008. Any further request for an extension of

these deadlines is highly disfavored. 

/ / /

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 265 Filed 04/25/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request for an extension of time (Doc. 264) to file objections

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

2. Objections are due by May 30, 2008; 

3. Responses to objections are due by July 30, 2008; and

4. Any further request for an extension of these deadlines is disfavored.

DATED: April 24, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 265 Filed 04/25/08 Page 3 of 3