Dunn v. Swarthout

Full title: JOHN DUNN, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Dec 16, 2013

2:11-cv-2731 JAM GGH P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013)

Opinion

JOHN DUNN, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent. No. 2:11-cv-2731 JAM GGH P United States District Court, E.D. California. December 16, 2013

          ORDER

          GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge,

         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.

         Presently scheduled for January 23, 2014 is an evidentiary hearing. Pursuant to Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases, and this court's order of December 3, 2013, petitioner was directed to inform the court whether he wished to be appointed counsel for the evidentiary hearing. Petitioner filed a response on December 11, 2013, indicating that he wishes to have counsel appointed.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. The evidentiary hearing, currently scheduled for January 23, 2014, is continued to May 22, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. in courtoom #9;

         2. The Federal Defender is appointed to represent petitioner for purposes of investigating, preparing for and conducting the pending evidentiary hearing;

         3. The evidentiary hearing will be limited to: the receipt of testimony and/or evidence relevant to the issue of petitioner's claim of due process violation of his right to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing, including the materiality of such testimony;

         4. Counsel shall be responsible for issuing the appropriate writs; and

         5. In addition to respondent's counsel and petitioner pro se, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on David Porter, Assistant Federal Defender.