Galloway v. Cates et al

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/6/2012 ORDERING that, within thirty days from the date of this order, respondent shall file a response to petitioner's 5/22/2012 30 motion for expansion of the record, and shall also file or lodge with this court the decision of the California Court of Appeal on petitioners direct appeal. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

PETER LYNN GALLOWAY,
Petitioner,

11
12

No. 2:11-cv-1464 KJM DAD P

vs.

13

R. H. TRIMBLE, Warden,

14

Respondent.
/

15
16

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas

17

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction entered

18

against him on December 18, 2008 in the Sacramento County Superior Court on charges of

19

second degree robbery with one prior felony “strike” conviction, service of three prior prison

20

terms, and one “serious or violent” prior felony conviction. He seeks federal habeas relief on the

21

grounds that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to accurately convey to

22

him the terms of a plea offer.

23

On May 22, 2012, petitioner filed a motion for “expansion of the record of

24

appeal.” (Doc. No. 30.) Therein, petitioner requests that respondent file additional specified

25

material relevant to petitioner’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. See

26

Rule 5(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“The
1

1

respondent must attach to the answer parts of the transcript that the respondent considers

2

relevant. The judge may order that the respondent furnish other parts of existing transcripts or

3

that parts of untranscribed recordings be transcribed and furnished.”). Respondent has not filed a

4

response to this motion. Further, in his answer to the petition, respondent states that he has filed

5

as an exhibit thereto the decision of the California Court of Appeal on petitioner’s direct appeal.

6

However, no such exhibit has been filed with this court.

7

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, within thirty days from the date of this order,

8

respondent shall file a response to petitioner’s May 22, 2012 motion for expansion of the record,

9

and shall also file or lodge with this court the decision of the California Court of Appeal on

10

petitioner’s direct appeal.

11

DATED: September 6, 2012.

12
13
14
15

DAD:8
galloway1464.o

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