1:05-cv-1208-LJO-TAG HC.United States District Court, E.D. California.
December 26, 2007
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE (Doc. 22)
THERESA GOLDNER, Magistrate Judge
Petitioner Thomas Ezerkis (“Petitioner”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On November 26, 2007, respondents G.J. Giurbino, et al. (“Respondents”) filed an answer to Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 18). On that same date, Respondents lodged various documents, reporters’ transcripts, and clerks’ transcripts with the Court. (See Docs. 19, 20). Petitioner’s traverse, if any, was due thirty (30) days from the date Respondent’s answer was filed with the Court, i.e., by December 26, 2007. (Doc. 11).
On December 17, 2007, Petitioner filed a request for a 90-day extension of time to file a response to the answer, i.e., a traverse. (Doc. 22). Petitioner indicated in that request that there is only one law library at the prison where he is incarcerated, that the law library’s capacity is approximately 20 people at one time, and that restrictions exist for the use of the law library, and he “therefor requests an extension of 90 days to inable (sic) him to attempt to perfect a comprehensive and intelligent response to the Attorney General’s filing.” Petitioner’s request does not specify how the library’s capacity or restrictions affect him specifically, or how they prevent him from filing a
Page 2
timely traverse in this action. (Id.). The Court notes that 30 days have passed from the date Respondent’s answer was filed to and including the date of this Order. Nevertheless, the Court has also considered the length of Respondent’s answer and the accompanying number of pages of lodged documents and transcripts, and finds that good cause exists to grant Petitioner an additional 30 days to file a traverse.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file a traverse (Doc. 22), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:
A. Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which to file a traverse;
B. Petitioner’s request for a ninety (90) day extension of time to file a traverse is DENIED; and
2. No further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 1