Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02807/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02807-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES ROBERT MILES,

Plaintiff,

v.

R.T.C. GROUNDS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02807-HSG (PR)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE TRAVERSE; DENYING 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 20

On June 17, 2014, petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley

State Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 1, 2014, the Court denied petitioner’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. On October 29, 2014, the Court entered an order to show cause directing 

respondent to file an answer to the petition within sixty days. Following two extensions of time, 

respondent filed an answer on March 26, 2015. Now before the Court is petitioner’s motion for an 

extension of time to file his traverse. Petitioner has also filed a renewed motion for appointment 

of counsel.

Petitioner does not indicate how much additional time he seeks to file his traverse. Nor 

does he explain why he requires an extension. Because the Court has been generous with 

extensions for respondent, petitioner’s request for an extension is GRANTED, and petitioner’s 

deadline for filing his traverse is CONTINUED to May 27, 2015. Petitioner is advised that any 

future requests for an extension of time must be supported by a declaration setting forth the 

reasons for the extension. See Civil Local Rule 6-3(a).

Case 4:14-cv-02807-HSG Document 21 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

For the reasons given in the Court’s August 1, 2014 order, petitioner’s renewed motion for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED. The Court may reconsider petitioner’s request sua sponte

should an evidentiary hearing be necessary following consideration of the merits of petitioner’s 

claims.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 19 and 20.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/29/2015

Case 4:14-cv-02807-HSG Document 21 Filed 04/29/15 Page 2 of 2