Dubov v. Swarthout

Full title: MICHAEL DUBOV, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 18, 2011

No. 2:10-cv-3288 GEB KJN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2:10-cv-3288 GEB KJN P.

February 18, 2011

ORDER

KENDALL NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a 2009 decision of the Board of Parole Hearings denying petitioner parole. Respondent has answered the petition. Petitioner now seeks leave to file an amended petition in light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling inSwarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. ___ (2011), No. 10-333, 2011 WL 197627 (Jan. 24, 2011).

For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's motion for leave to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 12) is granted;

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days after the filing date of this order to file and serve an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, or seek voluntary dismissal of this action;¹

1 Petitioner is reminded that federal habeas claims must first be fully exhausted in the state courts. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). Petitioner (and respondent) may, in their amended pleadings, incorporate by reference exhibits already on file.

3. Should petitioner file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, respondent shall, within twenty-one days thereafter, file and serve a response (answer or motion); and

4. Petitioner's reply or opposition shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the response.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 17, 2011