(HC)Lawless v. Cates ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTOPHER WILLIAM LAWLESS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00523-JLT-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 13 v. FILE OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 BRIAN CATES, 15 Respondent. (ECF No. 24) 16 17 Petitioner Kristopher William Lawless is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 On June 21, 2022, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 14.) On July 1, 2022, 20 Petitioner filed a motion for a 45-day extension of time to file an opposition. (ECF No. 16.) On 21 July 5, 2022, the Court granted Petitioner the 45-day extension of time to file the opposition to 22 the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 17.) On July 14, 2022, Petitioner filed an opposition. (ECF No. 23 19.) On July 21, 2022, Respondent filed a reply. (ECF No. 19.) On August 31, 2022, Petitioner 24 filed a supplemental opposition. (ECF No. 21.) On October 26, 2022, the undersigned issued 25 findings and recommendations to grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss in part and allow 26 Petitioner to proceed with his exhausted claim. (ECF No. 23.) The findings and 27 recommendations were served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the findings and recommendations. 1 On November 4, 2022, the Court received the instant “Motion for Extension of Time to 2 | File Opposition/Response,” in which Petitioner requests a 45-day “extension of time to file an 3 | opposition to the motion to dismiss due to lack of access to law library and currently on Covid19 4 | restrictions lockdown.” (ECF No. 24 at 1.) However, as set forth above, Petitioner was already 5 | granted a 45-day extension of time to file his opposition and in fact filed an opposition and 6 | supplemental opposition, which the undersigned considered before issuing the findings and 7 | recommendations. Therefore, given the procedural posture of this case, the Court construes the 8 | motion as a request for an extension of time to file objections to the findings and 9 | recommendations. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-82 (2003) (courts may 10 | recharacterize a pro se motion to “create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro 11 | se motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis”); Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th 12 | Cir. 2005) (“the district court must construe pro se habeas filings liberally”). 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner is GRANTED to and including January 16, 14 | 2023, to file objections to the findings and recommendations. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ November 7, 2022 [sl ey 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28