Daniels v. Curry

Filing 12

ORDER. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 11/13/09. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings' ("BPH") refusal to grant him parole. Doc. #1. After the Court issued an Order to v. BEN CURRY, Warden, Respondent. / CURTIS DANIELS, Petitioner, ORDER No. C-09-0270 TEH (PR) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Show Cause, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Petitioner failed to specify which parole suitability hearing he is challenging. Doc. #9; see Doc. #8. Petitioner filed an Opposition, referring to the "attached" BPH transcript of his February 14, 2007 parole suitability hearing. Doc. #10 at 1. Respondent filed a Reply, Doc. #11; the Motion to Dismiss is now submitted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED The Court has reviewed all documents filed in this case; Petitioner failed to attach the BPH transcript of his February 14, 2007 parole suitability hearing. Therefore, within thirty (30) days from the date this Order is filed, Petitioner must file a copy of the February 14, 2007 BPH transcript; otherwise Respondent's Motion to Dismiss will be granted and the Petition will be dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. 11/13/09 THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.09\Daniels-09-270-order to file BPH transcript.wpd 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?