UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 14, 2010
JAMES BRADLEY HAAG, PETITIONER,
JAMES TILTON, DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO HOLD RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT AND ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF COURT ORDER [Docs. 78, 79]
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge.
On October 13, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to hold Respondent's counsel in contempt and issue sanctions for failing to submit a complete copy of the record. (Court Doc. 78.) The Court does not find merit to Petitioner's claim as Respondent has submitted all applicable state court records and has thoroughly complied with this Court's orders. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to hold Respondent in contempt must be denied.
On this same date, Petitioner also filed a motion to strike footnote one from the Court's September 23, 2009, Order denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. (Court Doc. 77.) In that order, it appears that the Court did inadvertently state in footnote one that Petitioner had been directed to submit a completed in forma pauperis application or pay the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will correct the September 23, 2009 Order to reflect that Petitioner was not ordered to submit a completed in forma pauperis application or pay the $5.00 filing.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's motion to hold Respondent in contempt is DENIED; and
2. The Court's September 23, 2009, Order denying Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing is MODIFIED to delete footnote one from the Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.