Summary
This document is a district court order granting a stipulated extension of time for federal respondents to file a response to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The parties requested a five-day extension, moving the deadline from September 25, 2025, to September 30, 2025, citing attorney staffing shortages and the need to gather responsive information. The court granted the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and applicable local rules.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court may grant a five‑day extension of time to file a response to a petition for writ of habeas corpus under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b).
Holdings
- The court granted the stipulation, finding good cause and concluding that the extension is permissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
Key quotations
“For good cause, a court may, “for good cause,” extend a deadline if a request is made “before the original time or its extension requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).”
“The Ninth Circuit has equated good cause with the exercise of due diligence. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 609 (9th Cir. 1992).”
Factual background
Petitioner Agustin Martinez-Celis filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention. Respondents, federal agencies, needed additional time to gather responsive information and were experiencing staffing shortages, prompting a request for a five‑day extension.
Procedural history
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondents sought a five‑day extension to file their response, citing good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The district court granted the stipulation.