(HC) Papazian v. B.M. Trate ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES MICHAEL PAPAZIAN, 1:24-cv-00392-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S 13 v. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND DENYING MOTION FOR COPIES 14 B.M. TRATE, (Doc. Nos. 15, 16) 15 Respondent. ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 16 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 17 (Doc. No. 17) 18 19 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this habeas 20 corpus action filed a motion for extension of time and motion for copies on September 9, 2024. 21 (Doc. No. 15, 16). Petitioner requests an extension of time to file a reply to Respondent’s 22 response, which he believes is overdue but not yet received due to mail interruption caused by a 23 mailroom clerk’s death. (Doc. No. 15). On August 4, 2024, the Court granted Respondent an 24 extension of time until September 10, 2024 to file a response to Petitioner’s First Amended 25 Petition. (Doc. No. 14). Further, herein, the Court is granting Respondent a further extension of 26 time until October 3, 2024 to file a response to the First Amended Petition. Thus, Petitioner’s 27 reply is not yet due so any request for an extension of time is premature. 28 In his motion for copies, Petitioner requests a copy of this First Amended Petition with 1 | exhibits. (Doc. No. 16). Neither Petitioner’s pro se nor his prisoner status entitle him to receive 2 || complimentary copies. Blair v. CDCR, 2018 WL 1959532, at *6 n. 2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018). 3 | Consistent with statute, the Clerk provides copies of pleadings at $0.50 per page. See 28 U.S.C. § 4 1914. Checks in the exact amount are payable to “Clerk, USDC.” See also, April 4, 2024 Notice 5 | to Litigant advising of Local Rules and Copy Work. (Doc. No. 3). Petitioner’s First Amended 6 | Petition (Doc. No. 11) is seventeen (17) pages in length. Thus, to the extent Petitioner wants a 7 | copy of the requested document he should forward a check in the amount of $8.50 to the Clerk. 8 On September 10, 2024, Respondent requested a further twenty-two (22) day extension of 9 | time to file a response to Petitioner’s First Amended Petition. (Doc. No. 17). Counsel explains 10 | that the documents requested from the Bureau of Prisons to respond to the Petition have not yet 11 | been received. (/d. at 2, §/ 3). For good cause shown, the Court will grant Respondent a further 12 | extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). 13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 14 1. Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 15) is DISREGARDED as 15 premature. As directed in the Court’s April 25, 2024 Order, if Respondent files an 16 answer to the First Amended Petition, Petitioner may file a reply within thirty (30) days 17 of the date of service of Respondent’s answer. If Respondent moves to dismiss the First 18 Amended Petition, Petitioner must file an opposition or statement of non-opposition 19 within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of Respondent’s motion. (See Doc. 20 No. 4 at 3, 3-4). 21 2. Petitioner’s Motion for Copies (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED. 3. Respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 17) is GRANTED. Respondent 3 shall file a response to the First Amended Petitioner no later than October 3, 2024. 24 25 | Dated: _ September 10, 2024 Mile. Th fares Hack HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28