From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hall v. Kramer

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 20, 2008
No. CIV S-07-2263 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-07-2263 FCD GGH P.

October 20, 2008


ORDER


The subclaim/arguments contending that petitioner did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the complaining victim about her hypnosis sessions at the preliminary hearing and that the procedures set forth in Cal. Evid. Code § 795 were not followed at the trial have been stricken from claim 1 of the amended petition. See Order, filed on 10/03/08 (# 28). By a separate order filed the same day, on 10/03/08 (# 29), petitioner pro se was substituted in as his own counsel in place of his former retained counsel, Jessie Ortiz III, who no longer represents petitioner in this matter. The court will now set forth the schedule of further briefing of the modified amended petition.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Respondents are directed to file an answer to the amended petition, as modified, within thirty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed.R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer shall be accompanied by all transcripts and other documents relevant to the issues presented in the petition.See Rule 5, Fed.R. Governing § 2254 Cases; and

2. Petitioner's reply (traverse), if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days after service of the answer.


Summaries of

Hall v. Kramer

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 20, 2008
No. CIV S-07-2263 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2008)
Case details for

Hall v. Kramer

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL ANTHONY HALL, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW C. KRAMER, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 20, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-07-2263 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2008)