Opinion
No. CIV S-06-1762 LKK GGH P.
November 6, 2007
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner's counsel filed, on 10/30/07, a document entitled "request for leave for discovery and memorandum of points and authorities," which is plainly a discovery motion, wherein it is stated that it is being brought pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Recently, more than one defectively noticed motion in more than one case has been filed, necessitating contact from court clerk staff to inform counsel of the lack of proper notice. (See, e.g., Medina v. Cramer, CIV S-06-2534 LKK GGH P, docket entry # 28, filed on 10/23/07, followed, only after counsel had been alerted by court staff, by docket entry # 29).
The attention of counsel for petitioner is directed to E.D. Local Rule 78-230(b), which sets forth the proper procedure and requisite time line to follow when noticing a motion on the court's law and motion calendar. The undersigned is at a loss to understand why appointed counsel for habeas petitioners have not routinely followed the appropriate method of noticing motions for hearing where there are counsel on both sides.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's counsel must properly notice the discovery motion for hearing, filed on 10/30/07, forthwith, and in any event, within five days; failure to do so will result in the motion being vacated from the court's calendar; and
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to record the name of Richard Kirkland, Warden, in place of the State of California, as respondent in the docket of this case.