From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roach v. Cockrell

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division
Nov 2, 2002
No. 2:02-CV-0042 **Capital Litigant** (N.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2002)

Opinion

No. 2:02-CV-0042 **Capital Litigant**

November 2, 2002


ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT


Came this date for consideration the above-entitled motion filed by respondent JANIE COCKRELL on November 4, 2002. Respondent's summary judgment motion is not a separate pleading but, instead, is urged in a combined pleading which also includes an answer. As the answer meets the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and addresses the merits of petitioner's habeas application, the motion for summary judgment is unnecessary. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Petitioner's habeas application will be determined on the basis of respondent's answer.

A brief in support of respondent's summary judgment motion has been filed separately.

If, for some reason, respondent contends the motion for summary judgment provides some avenue for relief not available by answer alone, or contends the denial of the motion for summary judgment prejudices respondent in some way, then respondent may file a motion requesting reconsideration of this Order. Any motion for reconsideration is due within twenty (20) days of the file mark date of this Order.


Summaries of

Roach v. Cockrell

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division
Nov 2, 2002
No. 2:02-CV-0042 **Capital Litigant** (N.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2002)
Case details for

Roach v. Cockrell

Case Details

Full title:Tony Roach, Petitioner, v. Janie Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division

Date published: Nov 2, 2002

Citations

No. 2:02-CV-0042 **Capital Litigant** (N.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2002)