Inocencio v. Hedgpeth et al

Filing 28

ORDER VACATING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 4/10/12. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2012)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
HENRY PAUL INOCENCIO,
7
Petitioner,

No. C 10-2334 PJH

8
v.
9
ANTHONY HEDGPATH, Warden,

ORDER VACATING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Respondent.
_______________________________/

12
The court VACATES the supplemental briefing schedule set forth in its April 5, 2012
13
order. Respondent correctly points out in his April 9, 2012 letter to the court that petitioner
14
did file a reply (traverse) in which he responded to respondent’s request in his answer to
15
dismiss the petition as untimely. Accordingly, further briefing on the timeliness issue is not
16
warranted.
17
In concluding that a traverse had not been filed, the court mistakenly relied on the
18
docket entry alone which described the traverse as “Response re Response to Order to
19
Show Cause.” A courtesy copy of the traverse, would have eliminated any confusion on
20
the court’s part. The parties are requested to be careful in the future as to the labels used
21
to docket documents in the ECF system and are reminded that Civil L.R. 5-1 and General
22
Order 45 require that courtesy copies be provided of all documents filed either manually or
23
electronically. Given the heavy volume of filings in this district, the court depends on
24
compliance with the local rules.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated: April 10, 2012
27
28

________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge