Gravel v. Babcock

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/16/2014 DENYING petitioner's 15 motion for summary judgment, without prejudice; the Clerk shall serve a copy of respondent's 14 answer and attached exhibit on petitioner's address of record; and petitioner has 30 days, to file a traverse to respondent's answer. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC MICHAEL GRAVEL, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. No. 2:14-cv-0012 KJN P ORDER MIKE BABCOCK, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 17 18 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Both parties consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. 19 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On April 7, 2014, respondent filed an answer. 20 On May 9, 2014, petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment. However, in his 21 motion, petitioner claims that respondent failed to respond to the petition (ECF No. 15 at 12, 16), 22 and is “not acting in good faith” (ECF No. 15 at 16). Indeed, petitioner’s motion fails to address 23 respondent’s arguments contained in the April 7, 2014 answer. The answer contains a certificate of service attesting to service by mail on petitioner at his 24 25 current address. However, it is apparent from petitioner’s motion that he did not receive a copy 26 of respondent’s answer. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) is denied without prejudice; 27 28 //// 1 1 2 3 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of respondent’s answer and the attached exhibit (ECF Nos. 14 & 14-1) on petitioner at his address of record; and 3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file a traverse to 4 respondent’s answer. 5 Dated: June 16, 2014 6 7 /grav0012.den 8 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?