From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cunningham v. Clark

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 26, 2009
No. 2:09-cv-2831 GEB JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2009)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-2831 GEB JFM (HC).

October 26, 2009


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Since petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be directed to file an answer.

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

1. Respondent is directed to file an answer within forty-five days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent shall include with the answer any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the application. Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases;

2. Petitioner's traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty days from the date respondents' answer is filed;

3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus and an Order Re Consent or Request for Reassignment on Jennifer Neill, Assistant Attorney General.


Summaries of

Cunningham v. Clark

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 26, 2009
No. 2:09-cv-2831 GEB JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2009)
Case details for

Cunningham v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner, v. KEN CLARK, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 26, 2009

Citations

No. 2:09-cv-2831 GEB JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2009)