IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 25, 2009
JERRY E. BROWNING, PETITIONER,
STEVE MOORE, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.
Since petitioner may be entitled to relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondents will be directed to file a response to petitioner's habeas petition. However, on May 16, 2008, the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008).
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Respondents are directed to file a response to petitioner's application within sixty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the application. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases;
2. Petitioner's reply, if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days of service of an answer;
3. If the response to petitioner's application is a motion, petitioner's opposition or statement of non-opposition shall be filed and served within thirty days of service of the motion, and respondents' reply, if any, shall be filed within fifteen days thereafter; and
4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
5. Within twenty days of the date of this order, the parties shall show cause why this action should not be administratively stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008), reh'g en banc granted, __ F.3d __, No. 06-55392 (9th Cir. filed May 16, 2008).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.