Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05758/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05758-3/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID E. WHITFIELD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

J. SOLIS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 04-5758 REC WMW HC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO MODIFY BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

[Doc. 7]

DENYING REQUEST FOR

DEFAULT

[Doc. 11]

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. On January 27, 2005, the court entered an order requiring

Respondent to file a responsive pleading. The order required Respondent to either file an

answer within 90 days or to file a motion to dismiss within 60 days. 

On April 29, 2005, Respondent filed both a request to modify the briefing schedule

and a motion to dismiss. In his request to modify the briefing schedule, Respondent

requested an extension of time to file his motion to dismiss. The court overlooked that

request by Respondent and failed to rule on it. In his request, Respondent explains that

Case 1:04-cv-05758-WMW Document 18 Filed 02/15/06 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

27

28 2

additional time was needed to file his motion to dismiss because of the need to obtain and

then review Petitioner’s 16 prior state habeas petitions. Good cause appearing, 

Respondent’s request to modify the briefing schedule is HEREBY GRANTED NUNC PRO

TUNC.

On May 13, 2005, Petitioner filed a request for entry of default. Respondent has not

defaulted in this case, but rather has filed a motion to dismiss. The court has now granted

Respondent an extension of time, nunc pro tunc, to file that motion. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s request for entry of default is HEREBY DENIED.

Petitioner has not responded to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. Because of the

court’s responsibility in overlooking Respondent’s motion to modify the briefing schedule,

the court will now grant Petitioner an extension of time to file a response to the motion to

dismiss. Accordingly, Petitioner is HEREBY GRANTED twenty (20) days from the date of

service of this order within which to file a response to Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05758-WMW Document 18 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 2