Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Woodmore v. Hartley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 9, 2009

MICHAEL WOODMORE, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES D. HARTLEY, WARDEN RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AS UNNECESSARY [Doc. 9]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 8, 2009. (Court Doc. 1.) On February 19, 2009, Respondent filed an answer to the petition, and on March 24, 2009, Petitioner filed a traverse. (Court Docs. 13, 16.)

In the interim, Petitioner filed a motion for the Court to take judicial notice of the California Supreme Court's decision of In Re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (2008). Petitioner's motion for judicial notice is unnecessary. A review of Petitioner's traverse reveals that he throughly cited and analyzed the Lawrence decision. Therefore, Petitioner has sufficiently alerted the Court to that decision, which will be duly reviewed and considered by the Court when rendering a decision on the merits of the petition. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for judicial notice is DENIED as unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090709

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.