Peterson v. Timme et al

Filing 31

ORDER Denying 29 Motion for Summary Judgment as Improperly filed; Denying Applicant's 30 Denying as moot request for status of the Motion for Dismissal by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 7/26/2012.(ervsl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 11-cv-03003-RBJ BRUCE EDWARD PETERSON, Applicant, v. RAE TIMME, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents. ORDER At issue is Applicant’s Motion for Dismissal filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Federal statutes do not address the standard for summary judgment in habeas proceedings. Thus, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(4). Under this rule, summary judgment is necessary when the moving party shows the absence of a genuine dispute about a material fact and a party’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A summary judgment motion is properly asserted in a civil action in which the moving party contends the undisputed material facts entitle it to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(a). This is not an action in which summary judgment is properly sought. Applicant’s Motion for Dismissal pursuant to Rule 56 has no basis in fact or law; rather than a motion, it is an attempt to present new evidence that Applicant apparently believes supports his habeas relief efforts. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Dismissal, ECF No. 29, is denied as improperly filed. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant’s request for status of the Motion for Dismissal, ECF No. 30, is denied as moot. DATED this 26th day of July, 2012. BY THE COURT: ___________________________________ R. Brooke Jackson United States District Judge

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?