IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 16, 2009
ROBERT M. FENENBOCK, PETITIONER,
DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
On July 6, 2007, the assigned district judge in this case adopted the undersigned's findings and recommendations, recommending that respondent's August 4, 2005 motion to dismiss be granted with leave to file a second amended petition alleging the claims alleged in petitioner's first amended petition as Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, along with a cumulative error claim grounded solely on the prejudicial effect of the errors alleged in those six claims. On July 16, 2007, petitioner filed a request for reconsideration. On March 25, 2008, the assigned district judge denied the request because petitioner failed to demonstrate that the court's order was clearly erroneous or resulted in injustice.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within sixty days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file a second amended petition alleging the claims set forth in petitioner's first amended petition as Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, along with a cumulative error claim grounded solely on the prejudicial effect of the errors alleged in those six claims;
2. Within sixty days of service of petitioner's second amended petition, respondent shall file an answer accompanied by all transcripts and other documents relevant to the issues presented in the second amended petition. See Rules 4 & 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases; and
3. Within thirty days of service of respondent's answer, petitioner shall file a reply, if any. Any request for an evidentiary hearing shall be filed and served concurrently with petitioner's reply to the answer.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.