Neuschmid

(HC) Reynolds v. Neuschmid

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 17, 20202:19-cv-02193California378 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIE REYNOLDS, No. 2:19-cv-02193-TLN-GGH Petitioner, v. ORDER R. NEUSCHMID, Respondent. 16 Petitioner Willie Reynolds (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 13, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 17.) On April 8, 2020, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Reassignment of Previous Request to Stay” which included a request for an extension of time to file objections. (ECF No. 18.) The magistrate judge denied the motion for reassessment but granted a 30-day extension of time to file objections. (ECF…

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.