Chairez v. Adams
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO SERVE RESPONDENT WITH PETITIONER'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (DOCKET NO. 13); SCHEDULING REPLY. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 16, 2008. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2008)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARTURO CHAIREZ, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) M. ADAMS, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) ______________________________ ) No. C 07-5767 MMC (PR) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO SERVE RESPONDENT WITH PETITIONER'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (DOCKET NO. 13); SCHEDULING REPLY
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Respondent has filed, in the above-titled habeas corpus action, a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely. On November 24, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed opposition to the motion to dismiss.1 Although the Court had previously informed petitioner that he must serve respondent with a copy of his opposition, the Proof of Service form attached to the opposition shows petitioner did not do so. Accordingly, in the interest of the efficient resolution of this matter, the Court hereby DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve respondent with a copy of the opposition (Docket No. 13); respondent shall file a reply thereto within twenty (20) days of the date this order is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 16, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Specifically, petitioner filed a document titled "Motion to Grant Habeas Corpus Writ." It is clear, however, from the contents of the document, that petitioner is opposing the 28 motion to dismiss by arguing that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.
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?