(HC) Love v. Knipp, No. 2:2014cv02817 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/14/15 ORDERING that Petitioner is granted 30 days from the date of this order to file his opposition to respondents motion to dismiss. Failure to file an opposition to respondents motion to dismiss within 30 days will result in the courts August 25, 2015 findings and recommendations being submitted to the district court judge assigned to this case for decision. (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 DANTE L. LOVE, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-2817 JAM CKD P v. ORDER WILLIAM KNIPP, 15 Respondent. 16 On September 8, 2015, petitioner filed a document the court construes as a request for an 17 18 extension of time to file an opposition to respondent’s pending motion to dismiss.1 Good cause 19 appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner is granted 30 days from the date of this order to file his opposition to 20 21 respondent’s motion to dismiss. 22 ///// 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 1 26 27 28 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. 1 2. Failure to file an opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss within 30 days will 2 result in the court’s August 25, 2015 findings and recommendations being submitted to the 3 district court judge assigned to this case for decision. 4 Dated: September 14, 2015 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 love2817.111(2) 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.