UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 4, 2012
ERNESTO ANTONIO MEJIA,
JOHNNY WILLIAMS, JR., RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE ) DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER ORDER PERMITTING PETITIONER TO FILE A REPLY NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF RESPONDENT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 May 13, 2010, and on behalf of Respondent on January 10, 2011.
The Court has reviewed the petition, the answer, and the reply. In the answer, Respondent does not address Petitioner's claim that a failure to apply Cal. Pen. Code § 4019 to him, and thereby to award him sixty (60) additional days of conduct credit, would violate Petitioner's right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Although Respondent generally qualifies the claims that Respondent alleges are exhausted by reference to claims properly advanced to the California Supreme Court (Ans., doc. 17, 6), reference to the petition for review filed by Petitioner in the California Supreme Court reflects that Petitioner raised his equal protection claim concerning Cal. Pen. Code § 4019 in the petition for review (LD 16, 29-30). Respondent does not provide any briefing concerning the merits of the claim or any specific briefing of the propriety of this Court's consideration of the claim in this proceeding. The Court desires to have Respondent's full briefing on these matters and to permit Petitioner to reply.
Accordingly, in the exercise of the Court's inherent power to control its cases and docket in the interests of the efficient administration of justice, Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936), Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), it is ORDERED that Respondent shall FILE a supplemental brief and any supporting documentation no later than thirty (30) days after the date of service of this order.
Petitioner may FILE a reply brief no later than thirty (30) days after the date of service of Respondent's supplemental brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.