Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01632/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01632-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Kane
Respondent
Ernest Machado
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST MACHADO,

Petitioner,

 v.

ANTHONY KANE, Warden, Correctional

Training Facility, Soledad,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-01632 WHA

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Respondent moved on December 9, 2005, for an extension of his deadline to file an

answer. He now asks to file it as late as January 24, 2006. Respondent asserted that this Court

had not issued a deadline for respondent’s answer. He also stated that Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(a)(4)(A) therefore set a deadline of December 16, 2005, for the answer, ten days

after this Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss. 

Respondent is mistaken. This Court did issue a deadline. In its order of September 29,

2005, this Court ordered respondent to answer within sixty days of service upon him of the

order to show cause. The order was served on or about October 3, 2005. FRCP 12(a)(4)(A)

states that the ten-day answer period only applies when a court order has not fixed a different

deadline. In this case, the order of September 29, 2005, controls. Respondent’s answer

therefore was due on or about December 2, 2005. It is now two weeks late. 

The time for objection to respondent’s motion has passed without any being registered

by petitioner. 

Case 3:05-cv-01632-WHA Document 22 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

This Court values highly the state’s input on this petition and therefore GRANTS

respondent’s motion. In the future, closer attention to the deadlines set by the Court would be

appreciated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01632-WHA Document 22 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 2