United States v. Samchuk, 2:12-cr-0066 GEB KJN P. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191018899
Visitors: 26
Filed: Oct. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2019
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Movant is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel with a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. On October 2, 2019, the undersigned ordered respondent to file a response to the motion within thirty days. Pending before the court is respondent's motion for a 90-day extension of time to respond to the motion. The grounds of this request are that the allegations in movant's motion are complex, and r
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Movant is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel with a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. On October 2, 2019, the undersigned ordered respondent to file a response to the motion within thirty days. Pending before the court is respondent's motion for a 90-day extension of time to respond to the motion. The grounds of this request are that the allegations in movant's motion are complex, and re..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Movant is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel with a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On October 2, 2019, the undersigned ordered respondent to file a response to the motion within thirty days.
Pending before the court is respondent's motion for a 90-day extension of time to respond to the motion. The grounds of this request are that the allegations in movant's motion are complex, and responding will require consultation with the trial record, discovery and a case history. Respondent's counsel also alleges that she is responsible for briefing another response to a § 2255 motion in another case; a highly contested extradition hearing set for December 4, 2019; post-trial litigation and sentencing in an out of district case, scheduled for October and November 2019; and a possible trial in December 2019 in a civil immigration case. Respondent argues that movant will not be prejudiced by this request for extension of time because movant's principle argument affects only two of her 14 counts of conviction.
Good cause appearing, respondent's motion for extension of time is granted. However, no further requests for extension of time to file a response to the motion will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Respondent's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 239) is granted;
2. Respondent's response to the motion is due on or before February 3, 2020.
Source: Leagle
