Baughman

(HC) Rogers v. Baughman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 19, 20192:19-cv-01656California706 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 D’ANGELO L. ROGERS, No. 2:19-cv-01656 MCE AC P Petitioner, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DAVID BAUGHMAN, Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 29, 2019, respondent filed and served a motion to dismiss this action on the ground it was filed after expiration of the one- year statute of limitations. ECF No. 17. This court previously informed the parties that if the response to the petition was a motion, “petitioner’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty (30) days after service of the motion.” ECF No. 9 at 2. According three additional days for service of respondent’s motion on petitioner by mail, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), the deadline for petitioner to submit his opposition to prison authorities for mailing1 was Monday, 26…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.