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.

Brown v. Poulos

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 1, 2009

PETER BROWN, PETITIONER,
v.
M. POULOS, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending is petitioner's "motion to intervene," which the court construes as a request for an extension of time, and denies as moot.

I. Background

On March 6, 2009, the court dismissed petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus for failure to name the proper respondent, and gave petitioner 30 days to file an amended petition naming the proper respondent. On April 1, 2009, petitioner requested that the court order prison officials at the California Institute for Men, where he was recently transferred, to provide petitioner with his legal property and allow petitioner access to the law library. On April 22, 2009, the court explained by order that compliance with its March 6, 2009 order did not require library access, as petitioner simply needed to amend his petition to name the proper respondent. The court construed petitioner's April 1, 2009 filing as a request for extension of time, and granted petitioner another 30 days to file an amended petition. The court also directed the Clerk of the Court to send petitioner the form Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus used in this court, as well as a copy of the February 25, 2009 petition.

II. Petitioner's "Motion to Intervene"

On the same day the court issued its April 22, 2009 order, petitioner sent a "motion for intervention," again requesting that the court order prison officials to provide him with access to his legal materials and the law library so he could prepare an amended petition. Shortly thereafter, on May 6, 2009, petitioner filed an amended petition. On September 9, 2009, the court directed respondent to file a response to the amended petition.

Like petitioner's April 1, 2009 request, the court construes the instant motion as a request for extension of time to file an amended petition. Given that petitioner filed an amended petition on May 6, 2009, the request is moot.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that petitioner's April 27, 2009 motion, construed as a request for an extension of time, is denied as moot.

20091001

© 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.