Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02157/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02157-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Si Van Dang
Petitioner
Scott M. Kernan
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

Because respondent’s motion to dismiss is also styled as respondent’s answer to

1

the petition, petitioner seeks an extension of time to file his traverse on the merits.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SI VAN DANG, No. CIV S-05-2157-LKK-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

SCOTT M. KERNAN,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with retained counsel, brings this petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 14, 2005, respondent

filed a motion to dismiss. That motion is currently set for hearing before the undersigned on

January 17, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. in Redding, California. Pending before the court is petitioner’s

motion for an extension of time to file a response to respondent’s motion. 

1

In his motion for an extension of time, petitioner indicates that respondent agrees

to an extension to February 13, 2006, to file a response to the motion to dismiss and a traverse. 

Petitioner suggests February 21, 2006, as a new hearing date for respondent’s motion to dismiss. 

Case 2:05-cv-02157-ALA Document 24 Filed 01/12/06 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

2

Good cause appearing therefor, the court will grant the requested extension of time to file a

response to the motion to dismiss and a traverse. 

The court, however, does not accept the suggested hearing date. First, February

21, 2006, is not this court’s law and motion hearing day. For February 2006, that day is the 14th. 

Second, it would be preferable for the parties to meet and confer on a mutually convenient

hearing date on the undersigned’s law and motion calendar. Alternatively, the parties could

agree to submit the motion on the papers with no hearing. The court expresses no preference. 

Petitioner will be required to notify the court whether the parties have agreed that the motion to

dismiss will stand submitted on the papers upon completion of briefing, or whether the parties

have agreed on a new hearing date. In the meantime, respondent’s motion to dismiss will be off

calendar and the January 17, 2006, hearing date will be vacated

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time is granted;

2. Petitioner’s response to respondent’s motion to dismiss is due by February

13, 2006;

3. Petitioner’s traverse is due by February 13, 2006;

4. Petitioner shall file a notice with the court consistent with this order by

February 13, 2006; and

5. The January 17, 2006, hearing date is vacated.

DATED: January 11, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02157-ALA Document 24 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2