From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dietle v. Yates

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 8, 2008
No. CIV S-06-2276 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 8, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-2276 FCD GGH P.

May 8, 2008


ORDER


Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 16, 2008, petitioner filed a motion to stay this action pending exhaustion of additional claims. On January 22, 2008, petitioner filed a document entitled "Motion to Amend." This document is an amended petition. On April 21, 2008, petitioner filed a statement indicating that his claims are now exhausted.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's January 16, 2008, motion to stay is vacated as unnecessary;

2. Petitioner's January 22, 2008, motion to amend is construed as an amended petition;

3. Within thirty days of the date of this order, respondent shall file a response to the newly exhausted claims contained in the January 22, 2008, amended petition which were not previously addressed in the answer filed September 17, 2007; petitioner's reply to respondent's response is due thirty days thereafter.


Summaries of

Dietle v. Yates

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 8, 2008
No. CIV S-06-2276 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 8, 2008)
Case details for

Dietle v. Yates

Case Details

Full title:DARRELL L. DIETLE, Petitioner, v. JAMES A. YATES, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 8, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-06-2276 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 8, 2008)