Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01556/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01556-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHOR BOLO LOR,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1556 AWI SMS HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

[Doc. 14]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On April 12, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the instant petition, along with a

modification for modification of the briefing schedule. (Court Docs. 14, 16.) 

In his motion for modification of the briefing schedule, Respondent states that pursuant to

the Court’s order of January 18, 2006, a motion to dismiss was due on or before March 19, 2006,

and an answer was to be filed on or before April 18, 2006. Counsel for Respondent states that

upon receiving the Court’s January 18, 2006, order, it was anticipated that a motion to dismiss

based on untimeliness would be filed and a rough draft had been prepared by March 13, 2006,

additional time was needed to formulate a response in light of Evans v. Chavis, __ U.S. __, 126

S.Ct. 846 (2006). This was performed on April 11, 2006. 

Good cause having been demonstrated, Respondent’s request for modification of the

briefing schedule is GRANTED, and the motion to dismiss filed April 12, 2006, is DEEMED

Case 1:05-cv-01556-AWI-SMS Document 23 Filed 10/24/06 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

 Respondent is advised and cautioned that future extensions of time should be filed prior the deadlines 1

expiration, as the procedure utilized by Respondent in this case is viewed unfavorably by the Court. See Local Rule

6-144(d). 

2

timely filed.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01556-AWI-SMS Document 23 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2