(HC) Moore v. Horel, et al, No. 2:2002cv00007 - Document 133 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER adopting in full 127 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/16/09. Respondent's 10/30/08 motion to dismiss specific claims 104 , is GRANTED. Petitioner's proposed amendments to the sixth amended petitio n 116 and 117 , construed as a motion for leave to amend the sixth amended petition, is DENIED. Petitioner's 7/13/09 motion for leave to amend his sixth amended petition 122 , is DENIED. Within 60 days from the service of this order, respondent shall file his answer to the remaining claims in petitioner's sixth amended petition; petitioner's traverse, if any, shall be filed and served within 30 days after the service of the answer.(Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Moore v. Horel, et al Doc. 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THOMAS EUGENE MOORE, Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 13 No. CIVS-02-0007 JAM DAD P ROBERT HOREL, Warden, Respondent. 14 ORDER / 15 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a sixth amended petition 17 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United 18 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 19 On August 17, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 21 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On September 10, 2009, 22 petitioner was granted an extension of time and on September 23, 2009, petitioner filed his 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 24 25 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 26 entire 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 ///// 2 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 3 proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 17, 2009 (Doc. No. 127), are 6 adopted in full; 2. Respondent’s October 30, 2008 motion to dismiss specific claims (Doc. No. 7 8 104), is granted; 3. Petitioner’s proposed amendments to the sixth amended petition (Doc. Nos. 9 10 116 and 117), filed on February 26, 2009, construed as a motion for leave to amend the sixth 11 amended petition, is denied; 4. Petitioner’s July 13, 2009 motion for leave to amend his sixth amended 12 13 petition (Doc. No. 122) is denied; and 5. Within sixty days from the service of this order, respondent shall file his 14 15 answer to the remaining claims in petitioner’s sixth amended petition; petitioner’s traverse, if 16 any, shall be filed and served within thirty days after the service of the answer. 17 DATED: October 16, 2009. 18 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 /moor0007.804.mtd2 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
