Davis v. Haviland

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/29/11 ordering that within 30 days from the service of this order, petitioner shall file a response addressing the impact of the prison rule violation reports on his parole suitablility hearings as was required by the court's 02/04/11 order. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DONALD DAVIS,

11
12
13
14
15

Petitioner,

No. CIV S-10-1029 KJM DAD P

vs.
JAMES HAVILAND,
Respondent.

ORDER
/

16

By order filed February 4, 2011, the respondent’s August 16, 2010 motion to

17

dismiss was granted with petitioner be granted leave to file an amended petition for a writ of

18

habeas corpus. The court instructed petitioner that in any amended petition he must clarify the

19

nature of his claims and explain how expungement of his three prison rule violation reports,

20

issued on November 30, 2007, was likely to accelerate his eligibility for parole. Petitioner was

21

also advised to provide in any amended petition the dates of his parole suitability hearings where

22

the prison disciplinary convictions at issue were considered by the Board and any comments that

23

were made by the Board panel at those parole hearings suggesting that the disciplinary

24

convictions impacted their suitability determination. On May 10, 2011, petitioner filed his

25

amended petition. However, therein, petitioner again did not address the impact of the prison

26

rule violation reports on his parole consideration hearings. Therefore, the court will order
1

1

petitioner to file a response to this order which provides that information which is necessary for

2

the court to consider in determining whether petitioner has stated a cognizable claim for federal

3

habeas relief .

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days from the service

5

of this order, petitioner shall file a response addressing the impact of the prison rule violation

6

reports on his parole suitability hearings as was required by the court’s February 4, 2011 order.

7

Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

8

dismissed.

9

DATED: July 29, 2011.

10
11
12

DAD:4
davi1029.supp

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2