Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00905/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00905-1/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

1

 Petitioner filed a brief in support of his motion on July 19, 2007. (Docket No. 10.)

1 07cv00905 J (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRENTON J. LOHMAN, Civil No. 07cv00905 J (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR REVERSAL OR

MODIFICATION OF ORDER GRANTING

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS [Docket No. 14]

v.

T. FELKER, Warden,

Defendant.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 15, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings

involving his Petition so he could exhaust claims in state court.

1

 (Docket No. 6.) Respondent filed an

Opposition to the Motion to Stay on August 8, 2007. (Docket No. 12.) Respondent also filed a Motion

for Extension of Time to File an Answer to the Petition on July 19, 2007, (Docket No. 8), which this

Court granted on July 23, 2007, (Docket No. 11). 

On August 8, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reversal or Modification of Order Granting

Extension of Time for Respondent to file an Answer to the Petition. (Docket No. 14.) Petitioner

contends the extension was in error because his Motion to Stay is currently pending in this Court. 

However, this Court’s grant of an extension of time for Respondent to file an Answer has no impact on 

Petitioner’s pending Motion to Stay. In the event Petitioner’s Motion to Stay is granted, Respondent

Case 3:07-cv-00905-J-CAB Document 15 Filed 08/16/07 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 07cv00905 J (CAB)

will be required to file an amended answer to respond to Petitioner’s amended petition, which would

supercede Respondent’s original answer. Accordingly, the Order Granting Respondent’s Motion for an

Extension was proper and Petitioner’s Motion for Reversal or Modification is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 16, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00905-J-CAB Document 15 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 2