Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01314/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01314-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Madden
Respondent
Richard Trevino Tamez
Petitioner

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD TREVINO TAMEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:16-cv-01314-LJO-SKO HC 

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 10)

 Respondent Raymond Madden, by his attorneys, moves for a 30-day extension of time in 

which to file his response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus in the above-captioned case. 

Although Respondent indicates that Petitioner does not object to the requested time extension, the 

parties do not submit a stipulation of extension of time. Nor does Respondent explain why he 

requires additional time to file objections. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) provides that a court may extend time “for good 

cause.” Petitioner has failed to articulate good cause for an extension of time in this instance. 

 Good cause not having been shown, the motion for an extension of time in which to file a 

response to the petition for habeas corpus is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to Respondent’s 

submitting a revised motion setting forth good cause for the grant of an extension. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 7, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:16-cv-01314-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 11/08/16 Page 1 of 1