Whitfield v. Swarthout
Filing
26
ORDER denying 22 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/17/11. (Plummer, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
REGINALD WHITFIELD,
11
Petitioner,
12
13
No. CIV-S-10-0646 KJM CKD P
vs.
GARY SWARTHOUT,
14
Respondent.
15
ORDER
/
16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, is proceeding with an application for
17
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a document titled
18
“motion for summary judgment.” Essentially, petitioner argues that because respondent filed a
19
motion to dismiss, and did not directly address petitioner’s claims, the court should grant
20
petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus. However, the court’s July 26, 2010 order
21
indicates that respondent was permitted to respond to petitioner’s application for writ of habeas
22
corpus by way of motion rather than answer. Furthermore, responding to a habeas petition by
23
way of motion is permitted under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. For these
24
reasons, petitioner’s “motion for summary judgment” will be denied.
25
/////
26
/////
1
1
2
3
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s
October 19, 2010 motion for “summary judgment” is denied.
Dated: November 17, 2011
4
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
1
whit0646.msj
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?
