Nevarez v. Jackson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

GABRIEL INDELICIO NEVAREZ, Case No. C24-5912-RSM-GJL Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME v. ROBB JACKSON, Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion requesting an extension of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Grady J. Leupold, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. #10. On February 26, 2025, Judge Leupold recommended that Petitioner’s federal habeas petition be dismissed with prejudice for failing to file by the deadline for the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Id. Petitioner’s objections were due 14 days after service of Judge Leupold’s Report and Recommendation. Id. Petitioner filed the instant Motion on March 10, 2025. Dkt. #11. In Petitioner’s Motion, he indicates that he was unable to file objections by the deadline because he is “currently on a lockdown that has been going on for several weeks” and indicates he is entitled to relief from the statute of limitations deadline to his petition because of delays in receiving his legal paperwork while being transferred to general population. See Dkt. #11.

“A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline,” LCR 7(j), and a motion for relief should be granted where “good cause” exists. See Allstate Indem. Co. v. Lindquist, No. C20-1508JLR, 2022 WL 1443676, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 6, 2022). When seeking an extension, the good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the extension. Id. Given all of the above and the potential for dismissal with prejudice, the Court will grant Petitioner’s request for an extension.

Accordingly, having considered the above Motion and remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time, Dkt. #11, is GRANTED. Petitioner’s Objections to the pending Report and Recommendation are now due on June 6, 2025. The Objections must be filed and served upon all parties no later than that date.

If Objections are filed, any response is due within 14 days after being served with the Objections.

DATED this 20th day of May, 2025.

A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE