Acrobat PDF

(HC) Britton v. Mendoza-Powers - 3

You must be logged in to download this document
Reviews
Shared by: Tim Stanley
Stats
views:
25
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
4/14/2008
language:
English
pages:
0
(HC) Britton v. Mendoza-Powers Doc. 3 Case 2:05-cv-00893-MCE-EFB Document 3 Filed 05/11/2005 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. Katie Mendoza-Powers, Respondent. -oOoPetitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. has paid the filing fee. A judge “entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Bobby Britton, Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-0893 MCE PAN P Order United States District Court Eastern District of California Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-00893-MCE-EFB Document 3 Filed 05/11/2005 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 person detained is not entitled thereto.” Petitioner may be entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2243. I therefore direct respondent to respond to petitioner’s application within 60 days from the date of this order. 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer shall be See Rule accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the application. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 30 days of service of an answer. If the response to petitioner’s application is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or statement of non-opposition shall be filed and served within 30 days of service of the motion, and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed within 15 days thereafter. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of petitioner’s April 19, 2005, petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Jo Graves, Attorney General for the State of California. Petitioner’s April 19, 2005, application for in forma pauperis status is disregarded because petitioner paid the filing fee. Dated: May 10, 2005. /s/ Peter A. Nowinski PETER A. NOWINSKI Magistrate Judge 2

Shared by: Tim Stanley
Other docs by Tim Stanley
Related docs
(HC) Miles v. Mendoza-Powers - 3
Views: 45  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Wells v. Mendoza-Powers - 3
Views: 51  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Sunderland v. Mendoza-Powers - 3
Views: 38  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Coleman v. Mendoza-Powers - 3
Views: 48  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Haro v. Mendoza-Powers - 3
Views: 51  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Padilla v. Mendoza-Powers - 3
Views: 30  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Ordez v. Mendoza-Powers - 3
Views: 34  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Barton v. Mendoza-Powers - 3
Views: 19  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Pappas v. Mendoza-Powers - 4
Views: 35  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Pappas v. Mendoza-Powers - 4
Views: 36  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Coleman v. Mendoza-Powers - 4
Views: 24  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Wells v. Mendoza-Powers - 4
Views: 32  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Miles v. Mendoza-Powers - 4
Views: 27  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Urioste v. Mendoza-Powers - 4
Views: 24  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Saffold v. Mendoza-Powers - 4
Views: 42  |  Downloads: 0