Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:01-CV-384 (MTT).
July 18, 2011
ORDER
In an Order dated June 30, 2011, the Court ordered Hittson to "amend his original 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition to include the now-exhausted Brady claim or to notify the Court why he cannot so amend." (Doc. 42). In response to this Order, Hittson filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (hereinafter "Amended Petition"). (Doc. 44).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (hereinafter "Rule 5"), Respondent file an answer in writing to the allegations of Hittson's Amended Petition. This answer is to be filed with the Clerk of this Court within thirty days of the entry of this Order.
The answer is to include all records that are required by Rule 5 that were not previously included in the Respondent's Notice of Filing, which was filed in this Court on March 22, 2002. (Doc. 8). This various courts required by Rule 5(d) that are related to Hittson's exhaustion of his claim brought pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Hittson may, pursuant to Rule 5(e), file a reply to the Respondent's answer within fifteen days of the date shown on Respondent's answer.