Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01334/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01334-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lee Peyton
Petitioner
Jeanice Woodword
Respondent

Document Text:

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

 It appears that Petitioner’s request for extension of time and the Court’s Findings and Recommendations

crossed in the mail. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE PEYTON,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANICE WOODWORD,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1334 REC DLB HC

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION OF MARCH 14, 2006,

AND GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND

PETITION

[Docs. 9, 10]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 14, 2006, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to United States

District Judge Robert E. Coyle to dismiss the case for failure to comply with the court’s order of

January 24, 2006 which ordered petitioner to amend his petition for habeas corpus by February

27, 2006. The Findings and Recommendations were dated and signed by the undersigned on

March 10, 2006. However, on March 13, 2006, Petitioner had filed for an extension of time to

amend his petition due, in part, to the fact that the Court’s mailing of the January 24, 2006 Order

had been returned to the Court as undeliverable.1 

In light of the fact that Petitioner has responded to the Court’s March 14, 2006 Findings

and Recommendations and submitted good cause, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING

Case 1:05-cv-01334-LJO-DLB Document 11 Filed 03/23/06 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

THEREFOR, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations of March 14, 2006, is VACATED; 

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in

which to file his amended petition for writ of habeas corpus in compliance

with the Court’s January 25, 2006, order; and 

3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. Local Rule

11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 22, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

ah0l4d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01334-LJO-DLB Document 11 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2