Jacobs v. Carey

Full title: ARTHUR JACOBS, Petitioner, v. TOM CAREY, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Aug 11, 2006

No. CIV S-06-1363 MCE GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-1363 MCE GGH P.

August 11, 2006

ORDER

GREGORY HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge

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 and discharged the order, filed on July 11, 2006, requiring either an affidavit supporting a request to proceed in forma pauperis or payment of the appropriate filing fee.

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

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

1. Petitioner has discharged the order, filed on July 11, 2006, by payment of the filing fee;

2. Respondents are directed to file a response to petitioner's application within thirty 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;

3. Petitioner's reply, if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days of service of an answer;

4. If the response to petitioner's application is a motion, petitioner's opposition or statement of non-opposition shall be filed and served within thirty days of service of the motion, and respondents' reply, if any, shall be filed within fifteen days thereafter; and

5. 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 Stanley Cross, Deputy Assistant Attorney General.