Morales Hernandez vs. Adams

Filing 65

ORDER Striking Petitioner's 55 Motion to Objection; ORDER Striking Petitioner's 60 Motion to Response to Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 08/26/2010. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
(HC) Morales Hernandez vs. Adams Doc. 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 v. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On February 9, 2009 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss that was ultimately denied by order of this Court on March 19, 2010. (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 18; Order, ECF No. 52.) On the same day that the order was issued, Respondent filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Obj. to Findings & Recommendation, ECF No. 53.) Petitioner filed a motion to the objection. (Mot. to Obj., ECF No. 55.) Petitioner's motion is not procedurally appropriate. Any disagreements with the assertions made by Respondent in his objections may now be incorporated in Petitioner's traverse to Respondent's Answer. (Answer, ECF No. 62.) Petitioner's motion to objections -1DERRAL G. ADAMS, Respondent. ANGEL MORALES HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:08-cv-00254 LJO MJS HC ORDER STRIKING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO OBJECTION [Doc. 55] ORDER STRIKING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER [Doc. 60] U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 27 28 shall be stricken, and will not be reviewed by this Court. Respondent need not respond to the motion. Petitioner also filed a motion to this Court's order directing Respondent to file a response. (Order to Respond, ECF No. 57; Mot. to Order to Respond, ECF No. 60.) The order directed Respondent to file a response, and Respondent did so in the form of an answer on July 19, 2010. (Answer.) Petitioner was not required to respond to the order, and his motion to the order to respond was not procedurally appropriate. However, Petition may now respond to Respondent's answer by filing a traverse, or alternatively, a motion for extension of time to file the traverse. The Court shall strike the current motion. Respondent need not respond to the motion. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to objection and motion to order directing Respondent to file a response are stricken. [Docs. 55, 60.] IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ci4d6 August 26, 2010 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Michael J. Seng -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?