(HC) Griffin v. Gipson, No. 2:2013cv02660 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/19/14 ORDERING that 18 Motion for Extension is granted in 13-2516 and denied in 2:13-2660 13 ; and petitioner shall file a reply to the answer in 2:13-2516 within 21 days from the date of this order. The Findings and Recommendations in 2:13-cv-2660 will be processed before the district judge. Clerk of the Court shall file this order in both cases 13-cv-2516 and 13-cv-2660.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID GRIFFIN, 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, v. No. 2:13-cv-2516 MCE GGH P No. 2:13-cv-2660 JAM GGH P ORDER CONNIE GIPSON, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file a “response” in both of his cases. In 18 case number 2:13-2516, petitioner is granted 21 days in which to file a reply to the answer. In 19 case number 2:13-2660, the undersigned denies an extension of time with respect to the filing of 20 objections to the Findings and Recommendations issued March 4, 2014. The Findings and 21 Recommendations indicate that the petition in 2:13-2660 is an exact duplicate of that filed in 22 2:13-2516. It does not take months of research in the law library to respond to this reason for 23 recommending dismissal. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 25 26 1. Petitioner’s request for an extension of time in 13-2516 (ECF 18) is granted, and denied in 2:13-2660 (ECF 13)); and 2. Petitioner shall file a reply to the answer in 2:13-2516 within twenty-one (21) days 27 from the date of this order. The Findings and Recommendations in 2:13-2660 will be processed 28 before the district judge. 1 1 2 3. The Clerk of the Court shall file this order in both cases 13-cv-2516 and 13-cv-2660. Dated: June 19, 2014 3 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 GGH:076:md; grif2516.111 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.