IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 14, 2009
RAYMOND N. COLEMAN, PLAINTIFF,
MICHAEL MARTEL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 254. On April 23, 2009, the parties filed a joint scheduling statement. In this document, petitioner states that he will file any motions for discovery or evidentiary hearing after he files his reply to respondent's response to the petition. It is this court's practice to order these requests filed at the time of the amended petition.
After reviewing this statement, the court issues the following scheduling ORDERS:
1. On or before August 14, 2009, petitioner shall file either an amended petition containing exhausted claims, a statement that he will stand on the original petition or an amended petition containing unexhausted and exhausted claims and a motion to stay; if petitioner files a motion to stay, it shall be noticed for hearing in accordance with the local rules;
2. If petitioner files an exhausted amended petition or a statement that he will proceed on the claims raised in the original petition, respondent's response is due on or before September 14, 2009; petitioner's reply is due on or before September 28, 2009;
3. Any supported requests for discovery or an evidentiary hearing by petitioner shall be filed at the time he files his amended petition;
4. If petitioner files a motion to stay, the court will issue a further scheduling order following resolution of this motion.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.