UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 8, 2011
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S REQUEST TO DISREGARD THE
MOTION REGARDING DIGITAL ENHANCEMENT
OF SOUND RECORDING (DOCS. 36) M ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER'S
MOTION (DOC. 35)
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 to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry of final judgment, by manifesting their consent in writings signed by the parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on March 9, 2009, and on behalf of Respondent on September 17, 2009. The case is proceeding on Petitioner's first amended petition (FAP), filed on February 3, 2010. (Doc. 23.) On or about January 6, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion (doc. 35) requesting that the Court order digital enhancement "for clarity and sound" of a CD or audio cassette of proceedings relating to Miranda warnings. (Mot. 3-4.) The parties had previously briefed the admissibility of the recordings, and the Court has deferred ruling on the admissibility of the recordings until the Court considers the merits of the petition. (Doc. 34, filed January 4, 2011.)
On February 7, 2011, Petitioner filed a request (doc. 36) asking the Court to disregard a "second response" sent by Petitioner to the Court on or about January 5, 2011. A review of the docket shows no submissions at the pertinent time other than Petitioner's motion. Accordingly, the Court understands Petitioner's request (doc. 36) to be directed to the Court and the parties. The Court further understands that Petitioner is asking the Court and the parties to disregard the motion (doc. 35) filed on or about January 6, 2011.
Respondent has not filed any opposition to the motion (doc. 35).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's request (doc. 36)
to disregard his motion.
It is ORDERED that Petitioner's motion (doc. 35) is DISREGARDED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.