Hill v. Biter

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/16/15 ordering petitioner's proposed substitution of counsel is granted. Joseph J. Wiseman is substituted for Donald T. Bergerson as attorney of record for petitioner in this case. Petitioner shall file a traverse within 60 days of the filed date of this order, absent further order of court. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CERON HILL, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:12-cv-2098 MCE DAD P v. ORDER MARTIN D. BITER, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed an answer to the petition on 19 February 13, 2014. Thereafter, petitioner’s counsel of record requested and received extensions 20 of time to file a traverse. Despite the granting of extensions of time, no traverse was filed. 21 Petitioner has now submitted a proposed substitution of counsel to which his current counsel of 22 record has stipulated. (Doc. No. 52.) The proposed substitution of counsel will be allowed and 23 petitioner’s new counsel will be granted sixty days within which to file a traverse. After the 24 traverse is filed, this matter will stand submitted for decision. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. Petitioner’s proposed substitution of counsel is granted. Joseph J. Wiseman, CSBN 27 107403, Wiseman Law Group, 1477 Drew Avenue, Suite 106, Davis, California 95618, 28 ///// 1 1 530.759.0700, is substituted for Donald T. Bergerson as attorney of record for petitioner in this 2 case; and 3 2. Petitioner shall file a traverse within 60 days of the filed date of this order, absent 4 further order of court. 5 Dated: March 16, 2015 6 7 8 DAD: 8 hill2098.sub 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?