Hillhouse v. Martel

Full title: DANNIE RAY HILLHOUSE, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL MARTEL, [1] Respondent.

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

Date published: May 11, 2011

CIV S-03-0142-MCE-CMK (E.D. Cal. May. 11, 2011)

Opinion

DANNIE RAY HILLHOUSE, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL MARTEL, ¹ Respondent. No. CIV S-03-0142-MCE-CMK United States District Court, E.D. California. May 11, 2011

          ORDER

          CRAIG M. KELLISON, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A telephonic case management conference was held on May 5, 2011, before the undersigned in Redding, California. James Thomson and Hilary Sheard appeared on behalf of petitioner; Paul O'Connor appeared on behalf of respondent.

         Following review of the case management conference statements, and discussion with counsel, the court has determined that the best course of action in this matter is to address the procedural defenses prior to entering Phase III.

         Accordingly, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Respondent shall, within 60 days of the date of this order, file a memorandum of points and authorities on his procedural defenses;

         2. Petitioner shall file an opposing memorandum within 60 days of the filing of respondent's brief;

         3. Respondent may file a reply brief within 30 days after the filing of petitioner's opposing brief;

         4. A hearing on the procedural defenses shall be scheduled following submission of petitioner's opposing brief; and

         5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect the substitution of Michael Martel as respondent in this matter.