Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03067/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03067-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Petitioner did not specify which of his claims are unexhausted.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE B. ORTIZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, Warden

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 05-3067 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(Docket No. 7)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a motion to stay the instant petition. On February 7,

2006, the Court dismissed one of Petitioner’s claims and denied Petitioner’s motion for

appointment of counsel and motion for discovery. The Court then granted Petitioner’s

motion to stay the instant petition, pursuant to Rhines v. Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535

(2005), while he returned to state court to exhaust some of his claims.1

 The Court stayed the

instant habeas action until thirty days after the California Supreme Court’s final decision on

Petitioner’s remaining claims and administratively closed the case. The Court notified

Petitioner that if he wanted this Court consider all of his claims, he must properly present

**Original filed 8/17/06**

Case 3:05-cv-03067-RS Document 9 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

these claims to the Supreme Court of California within thirty days of the date this order is

filed, and if he has not obtained relief in state court, thereafter notify the Court within thirty

days of the California Supreme Court’s decision.

On March 10, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time. In his request

Petitioner asks the Court for an order extending time for ninety days due to his limited law

library access and assistance with his habeas action. The Court concludes that Petitioner has

shown good cause for such extension. Based upon the amount of time that has already

passed since Petitioner’s request, the Court will grant Petitioner’s motion (docket no. 7) and

extend time for sixty (60) days from the date this order is filed. Accordingly, Petitioner shall

present his unexhausted claims to the Supreme Court of California within sixty days of the

date this order is filed, and if he has not obtained relief in state court, thereafter notify the

Court within thirty days of the California Supreme Court’s decision. The instant case will

remain administratively closed until Petitioner notifies the Court of any decision as to his

remaining claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

8/16/06

Case 3:05-cv-03067-RS Document 9 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Jose B. Ortiz

T-58897

Pelican Bay State Prison 

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95531

Case 3:05-cv-03067-RS Document 9 Filed 08/17/06 Page 3 of 3