Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02817/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02817-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Knipp
Respondent
Dante L. Love
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANTE L. LOVE,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM KNIPP,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-2817 JAM CKD P

ORDER

On September 8, 2015, petitioner filed a document the court construes as a request for an 

extension of time to file an opposition to respondent’s pending motion to dismiss.1 Good cause 

appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is granted 30 days from the date of this order to file his opposition to 

respondent’s motion to dismiss.

/////

/////

/////

 

1

 In the motion, petitioner attempts to justify his delay in filing his opposition to respondent’s 

motion to dismiss on the fact that he has appealed this court’s denial of his request for the 

appointment of counsel to the Ninth Circuit. However, that is not a legitimate justification as the 

court’s denial of petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel is not appealable. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1292.

Case 2:14-cv-02817-JAM-CKD Document 40 Filed 09/14/15 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

2. Failure to file an opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss within 30 days will 

result in the court’s August 25, 2015 findings and recommendations being submitted to the 

district court judge assigned to this case for decision.

Dated: September 14, 2015

1

love2817.111(2)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02817-JAM-CKD Document 40 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 2