From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Soto v. Alameida

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 16, 2007
No. CIV S-04-1432 LKK DAD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2007)

Opinion

No. CIV S-04-1432 LKK DAD P.

April 16, 2007


ORDER


Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 13, 2007 and March 29, 2007, petitioner filed documents which the court construes as requests for the status of this action. Court records indicate that on December 16, 2005, respondents filed their answer to the petition. Pursuant to the court's order of July 29, 2004, petitioner's traverse, if any, was to be filed within 30 days of the service of the answer. Petitioner did not file a traverse within the period of time provided. Accordingly, the matter stands submitted for decision at this time.

Because petitioner may have been confused as to the time for filing a traverse, in the interest of justice the court will grant petitioner an extension of time to file his traverse, if any. Thereafter, the matter will stand submitted and in due course, the court will issue its findings and recommendations. Petitioner is informed that because of the court's caseload, a response to inquiries about the status of his case cannot always be provided. As long as the petitioner keeps the court informed of any change of address, no further action is necessary.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days from the service of this order, petitioner shall file his traverse, if any.


Summaries of

Soto v. Alameida

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 16, 2007
No. CIV S-04-1432 LKK DAD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2007)
Case details for

Soto v. Alameida

Case Details

Full title:DAVID SOTO, Petitioner, v. EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Apr 16, 2007

Citations

No. CIV S-04-1432 LKK DAD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2007)