From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. McDonald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 6, 2011
No. CIV S-09-2967 MCE GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-09-2967 MCE GGH P

10-06-2011

CHARLES RAY SMITH, Petitioner, v. M. MCDONALD, Respondent.


ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing (Second Amended Notice) and set it for argument on October 13, 2011. Doc. 39. However, the hearing is approximately one week away and respondent has not filed an opposition or a statement of non-opposition. See Local Rule 230. Nevertheless, the hearing shall go forward on the scheduled date. Whether respondent will be heard depends on the reason why no opposition was filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Gregory G. Hollows

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Smith v. McDonald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 6, 2011
No. CIV S-09-2967 MCE GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2011)
Case details for

Smith v. McDonald

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES RAY SMITH, Petitioner, v. M. MCDONALD, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 6, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-09-2967 MCE GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2011)