(HC) Papazian v. B.M. Trate

E.D. California

(HC) Papazian v. B.M. Trate

DecidedMarch 6, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-00392

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Papazian v. B.M. Trate ((HC) Papazian v. B.M. Trate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(HC) Papazian v. B.M. Trate, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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 DENYING MOTION TO STAY 13 v. (Doc. No. 35) 14 B.M. TRATE, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME 15 Respondent.

16 17 18 19 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this habeas 20 corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed a motion to stay the proceedings on February 24, 21 2025. (Doc. No. 35). Petitioner requests request that his case be stayed for ninety days because 22 he is being moved to a different penitentiary and he estimates it will take a “month or two” for his 23 property to be delivered after his arrival. (Id.). 24 Petitioner filed his Second Amended Petition on November 25, 2025. (Doc. No. 29). 25 Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 18, 2025. (Doc. No. 33, “Motion’). On 26 February 21, 2025, Petitioner was granted an extension of time to April 4, 2025 to file a response 27 to the Motion. (Doc. No. 34). In the instant motion, Petitioner seeks to stay the case for 90 days. 28 (Doc. No. 35). However, Petitioner fails to assert any legally cognizable basis to necessitate 1 | staying this case. Instead, for good cause shown, the Court will grant Respondent a further 2 | extension of time to respond to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A); See 3 | Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (instructing federal courts to liberally construe 4 | the “inartful pleading[s] of pro se litigants.”). 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 6 1. Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED, as unnecessary. 7 2. Petitioner shall deliver a response to Respondent’s Motion to dismiss to correctional 8 officials for mailing no later than May 21, 2025. 9 10 | Dated: _ March 6, 2025 Wile. Th fares Zack ll HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 DENYING MOTION TO STAY 13 v. (Doc. No. 35) 14 B.M. TRATE, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME 15 Respondent.

16 17 18 19 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this habeas 20 corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed a motion to stay the proceedings on February 24, 21 2025. (Doc. No. 35). Petitioner requests request that his case be stayed for ninety days because 22 he is being moved to a different penitentiary and he estimates it will take a “month or two” for his 23 property to be delivered after his arrival. (Id.). 24 Petitioner filed his Second Amended Petition on November 25, 2025. (Doc. No. 29). 25 Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 18, 2025. (Doc. No. 33, “Motion’). On 26 February 21, 2025, Petitioner was granted an extension of time to April 4, 2025 to file a response 27 to the Motion. (Doc. No. 34). In the instant motion, Petitioner seeks to stay the case for 90 days. 28 (Doc. No. 35). However, Petitioner fails to assert any legally cognizable basis to necessitate 1 | staying this case. Instead, for good cause shown, the Court will grant Respondent a further 2 | extension of time to respond to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A); See 3 | Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (instructing federal courts to liberally construe 4 | the “inartful pleading[s] of pro se litigants.”). 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 6 1. Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED, as unnecessary. 7 2. Petitioner shall deliver a response to Respondent’s Motion to dismiss to correctional 8 officials for mailing no later than May 21, 2025. 9 10 | Dated: _ March 6, 2025 Wile. Th fares Zack ll HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Papazian v. B.M. Trate, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-papazian-v-bm-trate-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack