From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sherman v. Yolo County Chief Probation Officer

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 27, 2008
No. CIV S-07-2055-WBS-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-07-2055-WBS-CMK-P.

May 27, 2008


ORDER


Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), filed on October 1, 2007.

The court has examined the petition as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. It does not plainly appear from the petition and any attached exhibits that petitioner is not entitled to relief. See id. Respondents, therefore, will be directed to file a response to petitioner's petition. See id. If respondents answer the petition, such answer must comply with Rule 5 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Specifically, an answer shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issue(s) presented in the petition. See id.

On November 5, 2007, the court directed the Clerk of the Court to forward a copy of the petition to Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General for the State of California. The court further directed that he file a response on behalf of respondents. On that same day, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Brian G. Smiley filed a response requesting dismissal of the Attorney General of the State of California as a respondent to this action and advising that the appropriate agency to file a response on behalf of respondent Yolo County Chief Probation Officer is the Yolo County Counsel's Office. On December 19, 2007, the court issued an order directing the Yolo County Counsel's Office to respond to the petition on behalf of respondent Yolo County Chief Probation Officer within 30 days. The court also issued findings and recommendations that the Attorney General of the State of California be dismissed as a respondent to this action.

The findings and recommendations were adopted on February 28, 2008.

To date, respondent Yolo County Chief Probation Officer has not filed a response to the petition. Respondent is hereby directed to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed on respondent and/or the Yolo County Counsel's Office for violation of the court's December 19, 2007, order. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 11-110. Respondent Yolo County Chief Probation Officer is advised that the filing of a response to the petition within the time provided by this order will constitute an adequate response to the order to show cause.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent Yolo County Chief Probation Officer is directed to show cause in writing, within 20 days of the date of this order, why monetary sanctions should not be imposed; and

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on Ms. Robyn Drivon and Mr. Daniel Cederborg, Office of the Yolo County Counsel, 625 Court Street, Room 201, Woodland, California, 95695.


Summaries of

Sherman v. Yolo County Chief Probation Officer

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 27, 2008
No. CIV S-07-2055-WBS-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2008)
Case details for

Sherman v. Yolo County Chief Probation Officer

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH ARCH SHERMAN, Petitioner, v. YOLO COUNTY CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER…

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

Date published: May 27, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-07-2055-WBS-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2008)