From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Torres v. Espinoza

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 12, 2022
2:19-cv-00093-DAD-CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2022)

Opinion

2:19-cv-00093-DAD-CKD P

10-12-2022

COLLEEN IVA-MARIE TORRES, Petitioner, v. JANEL ESPINOZA, Respondent.


FURTHER SCHEDULING ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner is a state inmate proceeding through appointed counsel in this habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to the court's order dated August 4, 2022, counsel for petitioner filed a motion for a further scheduling order. ECF No. 36. Upon review of the motion, and for good cause shown, the court will set a further scheduling order governing this case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's motion for a further scheduling order (ECF No. 36) is granted.

2. Petitioner shall file a motion to amend along with the proposed first amended § 2254 petition within 30 days from the date of this order. If the proposed amended petition contains any unexhausted claim(s) for relief, petitioner shall file a motion for a stay and abeyance along with the amended petition.

3. Respondent shall file a response to the motion to amend and any motion for a stay and abeyance within 21 days after service.

4. Petitioner shall file a reply brief within 14 days after service of respondent's opposition to the motions.

5. The appointment of counsel for petitioner is extended to include the preparation and filing of the reply brief in support of the motion to amend and/or motion for a stay and abeyance.

6. Following expiration of this briefing schedule, the motion to amend and any motion for a stay and abeyance will be deemed submitted on the record.

7. Upon resolution of the motion to amend by the district judge assigned to this case, the court will screen the amended § 2254 petition as appropriate and will direct respondent to file an answer. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. At that time, the court will consider directing respondent to expand the record as necessary pursuant to Rule 7(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Expanding the record does not preclude petitioner from filing a motion for leave to conduct discovery, if necessary, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

8. Counsel for petitioner may seek further appointment from the court as necessary during the pendency of this case.


Summaries of

Torres v. Espinoza

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 12, 2022
2:19-cv-00093-DAD-CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2022)
Case details for

Torres v. Espinoza

Case Details

Full title:COLLEEN IVA-MARIE TORRES, Petitioner, v. JANEL ESPINOZA, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 12, 2022

Citations

2:19-cv-00093-DAD-CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2022)