From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blackwell v. Hickman

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 15, 2011
No. CIV S-06-1876 RRB GGH P, No. CIV S-10-2316 RRB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-1876 RRB GGH P, No. CIV S-10-2316 RRB GGH P.

September 15, 2011


ORDER


Petitioner in both cases, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The above two cases have been consolidated. On August 12, 2011, in case 06-1876 petitioner filed a motion (Doc. 25) noting that respondent had not filed an answer on time. Petitioner is mistaken, respondent requested an extension which appeared in case 10-2316 which was granted and respondent filed the answer on August 9, 2011. Therefore, respondent's answer is timely filed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion for default judgement (Doc. 25 in CIV S-06-1876 RRB GGH) is denied and respondent's answer is timely filed.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to docket respondent's answer, Doc. 23 in CIV S-06-1876 RRB GGH onto the docket in CIV S-10-2316 RRB GGH P

DATED: September 14, 2011


Summaries of

Blackwell v. Hickman

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 15, 2011
No. CIV S-06-1876 RRB GGH P, No. CIV S-10-2316 RRB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2011)
Case details for

Blackwell v. Hickman

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY M. BLACKWELL, Petitioner, v. RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, Respondent…

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

Date published: Sep 15, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-06-1876 RRB GGH P, No. CIV S-10-2316 RRB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2011)