From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HUNT v. CATE

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 15, 2010
No. 2:09-cv-1540 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2010)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-1540 KJN P.

February 15, 2010


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

Because petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be directed to file a response to petitioner's application.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent is directed to file a response to petitioner's application within sixty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed.R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the application. See Rule 5, Fed.R. Governing § 2254 Cases;

2. Petitioner's reply, if any, shall be filed and served within twenty-eight days of service of an answer;

3. If the response to petitioner's application is a motion, petitioner's opposition or statement of non-opposition shall be filed and served within twenty-eight days of service of the motion, and respondent's reply, if any, shall be filed within fourteen days thereafter; and

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General.


Summaries of

HUNT v. CATE

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 15, 2010
No. 2:09-cv-1540 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2010)
Case details for

HUNT v. CATE

Case Details

Full title:STONEY LYNN HUNT, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of Corrections…

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

Date published: Feb 15, 2010

Citations

No. 2:09-cv-1540 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2010)