UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 19, 2010
IZEAR KEGLER, PETITIONER,
JAMES D. HARLTEY, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO EITHER FILE AN ANSWER TO THE PETITION OR A MOTION TO DISMISS WITHIN TWENTY DAYS
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in pro per with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The petition was filed on February 11, 2010, challenging the Board of Parole Hearing's denial of suitability for Petitioner to be released on parole. (Doc. 1). On March 18, 2010, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response to the petition. (Doc. 4). On May 14, 2010, Respondent requested and was granted a thirty day extension of time to file the response. (Docs. 9 & 11). At the point, the response was due no later than June 21, 2010.
On May 24, 2010, Respondent filed a Notice of Release on Parole, indicated that Petitioner had been found suitable for and was released on parole as of May 18, 2010. (Doc. 13, p. 2). However, Respondent neither requested dismissal of the petition as moot nor did Respondent subsequently file an answer.
Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
1. Within twenty days of the date of service of this order, Respondent shall file a response to the petition within the guidelines set forth by the Court in its original scheduling order dated March 18, 2010. As indicated in those guidelines, the response may either be an answer to the merits of the petition or a motion to dismiss on the grounds stated in the scheduling order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.