From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MIZE v. CATE

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 13, 2011
No. CIV S-11-2007 KJM EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-11-2007 KJM EFB P.

September 13, 2011


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit.

A judge "entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. It is not apparent from the face of the application that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:

1. Petitioner's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Respondent shall file and serve either an answer or a motion in response to petitioner's application within 60 days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed.R. Governing § 2254 Cases. Any response shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the application. See Rules 4, 5, Fed.R. Governing § 2254 Cases.

3. Petitioner's reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 30 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 30 days of service of the motion, and respondents' reply, if any, shall be filed within 14 days thereafter.

5. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of petitioner's July 29, 2011 petition for a writ of habeas corpus with any and all attachments on Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk of the Court also shall serve on the Senior Assistant Attorney General the consent form used in this court.


Summaries of

MIZE v. CATE

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 13, 2011
No. CIV S-11-2007 KJM EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2011)
Case details for

MIZE v. CATE

Case Details

Full title:DENNIS WAYNE MIZE, SR., Petitioner, v. M. CATE, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Sep 13, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-11-2007 KJM EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2011)