Hunt v. Lamarque
ORDER permitting further briefing. Signed by Judge Whyte on 1/29/10. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2010)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: 1/29/10 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge Petitioner Rocky Ryan Hunt moves for leave to amend his petition to assert additional claims that have recently been exhausted. In the original motion, petitioner argued for leave to amend based on a relation-back theory. In the reply, however, petitioner raised a new argument, contending that petitioner's new claims should be allowed based on the gateway standard set forth in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). Because respondent has not had the opportunity to address this argument, the court invites respondent to submit briefing on this issue. Respondent shall have 30 days to submit a sur-reply of no more than 15 pages. If respondent files such a sur-reply, petitioner may file a response of no more than 10 pages within 15 days of receipt of the sur-reply. v. A.A. LAMARQUE, Warden, Respondent. ROCKY RYAN HUNT, Petitioner, No. C-04-03925 RMW ORDER PERMITTING FURTHER BRIEFING [Re Docket No. 30] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION E-FILED on 1/29/10
ORDER PERMITTING FURTHER BRIEFING--No. C-04-03925 RMW CCL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Counsel for Petitioner: Paul Nathan Puri Counsel for Respondent: Gerald August Engler Violet May Lee Peggy S. Ruffra Gerald.Engler@doj.ca.gov email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.
CCL Chambers of Judge Whyte
ORDER PERMITTING FURTHER BRIEFING--No. C-04-03925 RMW CCL 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?