IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 1, 2012
GLENN CORNWELL, JR., PETITIONER,
WARDEN, SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
DEATH PENALTY CASE
On January 9, 2012, petitioner was ordered to notify the court how he intends to proceed on the claims identified as unexhausted in the court's October 25, 2011 Findings and Recommendations. (Dkt. No. 88.) On January 21, 2012, petitioner informed the court that he will abandon the unexhausted claims. (Dkt. No. 89.) Rather than file an amended petition, petitioner asks that the court dismiss the unexhausted claims from the existing first amended petition. Petitioner states that respondent is in agreement with this procedure. (Dkt. No. 89 at 2:9-10.)
Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Claims 2(g)-(n), 21(E), and any new factual allegations in subsection (J) of claim 21 are dismissed from petitioner's First Amended Petition.
2. Within sixty days of the filed date of this order, petitioner shall file a memorandum of points and authorities addressing the satisfaction of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) for each claim in the First Amended Petition.
3. Within ninety days of the filing of petitioner's memorandum, respondent shall file an Answer which shall conform to Habeas Rule 5 and shall include a memorandum of points and authorities in response to petitioner's memorandum regarding section 2254(d).
4. Within thirty days of the filing of the Answer, petitioner shall file a traverse which shall also include a memorandum of points and authorities in response to respondent's memorandum regarding section 2254(d).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.