UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 22, 2011
JAMES YATES, WARDEN,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER PERMITTING PETITIONER TO FILE A SUR-REPLY NO LATER THAN ) TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER SERVICE
OF THIS ORDER ORDER PERMITTING RESPONDENT TO FILE A REPLY TO THE SUR-REPLY NO
LATER THAN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THE SERVICE OF PETITIONER'S SUR-REPLY
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 August 2, 2010, and on behalf of Respondent on December 27, 2010.
Pending before the Court is Respondent's motion to dismiss. Petitioner has filed opposition to the motion, and Respondent filed a reply. The Court has previously deferred consideration of Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing in connection with the motion.
After the Court's review of the motion to dismiss, the opposition, and the reply, it is ORDERED that Petitioner may file a sur-reply no later than twenty (20) days after the date of service of this order. Respondent may file a reply to the sur-reply no later than twenty (20) days after the date of service of Petitioner's sur-reply. In their submissions, in addition to the other matters addressed by the parties, the parties may brief the issue of whether an evidentiary hearing should be ordered with respect to the timeliness of the petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.