Garcia v. U.S. Parole Commission Examiner for Florence

Full title: RAFAEL W. GARCIA, Applicant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION EXAMINER…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Sep 19, 2011

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02952-MSK-BNB (D. Colo. Sep. 19, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02952-MSK-BNB.

September 19, 2011

ORDER

BOYD BOLAND, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on Applicant's "Motion for a Court Order to Compel Respondents to Answer the Petition" [Doc. No. 13, filed 5/9/2011] and Applicant's "Motion to Show Cause Why Habeas Petition Should be Granted" [Doc. No. 25, filed 8/17/2011]. The motions were referred to me on September 6, 2011.

The "Motion for a Court Order to Compel Respondents to Answer the Petition" will be denied as moot because a second order to show cause was issued in this action on May 11, 2011, and Respondents timely filed an "Answer to Amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus" [Doc. No. 24, filed 8/10/2011].

In the "Motion to Show Cause Why Habeas Petition Should be Granted," Applicant asks that the relief he seeks in this action be granted because Respondents failed to respond to the Court's May 11 order to show cause. The "Motion to Show Cause Why Habeas Petition Should be Granted" will be denied because, as noted above, Respondents filed a timely response on August 10. Although the "Answer to Amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus" filed by Respondents includes a certificate of service indicating that a copy of the response was served on Applicant on August 10, it appears that Applicant may not have received a copy of that response. Therefore, Respondents will be directed to serve on Applicant, on or before September 26, 2011, another copy of their "Answer to Amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus." Applicant will be allowed thirty days thereafter, or to and including October 26, 2011, within which to file a reply, if any. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Applicant's "Motion for a Court Order to Compel Respondents to Answer the Petition" [Doc. No. 13] is DENIED as moot. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant's "Motion to Show Cause Why Habeas Petition Should be Granted" [Doc. No. 25] is DENIED. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall serve on Applicant, on or before September 26, 2011, a copy of their "Answer to Amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus," including attachments, and file a certificate of service with the court specifying the form and date of service. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant shall have to and including October 26, 2011, within which to file a reply, if any.