Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01334/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01334-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert John Bria
Petitioner
Ben Curry
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-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT JOHN BRIA,

Petitioner,

vs.

BEN CURRY,

Respondent. 

________________________________/

1:06-cv-01334-AWI-TAG (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE (Doc. 22)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On April 14, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion for a sixty-day extension of time 

to file his traverse. (Doc. 18). Petitioner contended that the time allowed for him to use the

prison law library is restricted. On May 5, 2008, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion in part

and denied it in part, granting him an additional thirty days to file his traverse. (Doc. 21). On

May 22, 2008, Petitioner filed a second motion for an extension of time of time to file his

traverse, on the same ground. (Doc. 22). 

The scheduling order in this action directed Petitioner to file a traverse, if any, no later

than thirty days after the answer was filed. (Doc. 9). The answer was filed on March 26, 2008. 

As a result of the Court’s May 5, 2008 order, the time to file a traverse was effectively extended

to June 10, 2008. Thus, Petitioner’s time to file his traverse has effectively been extended more

than 30 days, and he still has 19 days from the date of this order to file his traverse. The Court

concludes that Petitioner has failed to show good cause for an additional extension of time to

file his traverse. 

Case 1:06-cv-01334-IEG-LSP Document 25 Filed 05/23/08 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-

Accordingly, Petitioner’s second motion for an extension of time to file a traverse is

DENIED. (Doc. 22). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01334-IEG-LSP Document 25 Filed 05/23/08 Page 2 of 2