(HC) Closner v. Belleque, No. 2:2008cv01313 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/29/2009 ORDERING 16 Amended Objections to Findings and Recommendations filed by Leslie Closner are deemed timely; and respondent is ordered to file a response to petitioner's amended objections not later than 2/6/2009. (Matson, R)

Download PDF
(HC) Closner v. Belleque Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LESLIE CLOSNER, 11 12 13 14 Petitioner, vs. BRIAN BELLEQUE, Respondent. 15 16 No. CIV S-08-1313 JAM EFB P ORDER / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this application 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 November 25, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner 22 filed objections to the findings and recommendations on December 12, 2008, and amended 23 objections on December 29, 2008. 24 In his amended objections, petitioner apprises the court of In re Burdan, 169 Cal. 25 App. 4th 18 (2008), an opinion of the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, filed 26 December 12, 2008. In Burdan, the petitioner was challenging a denial of parole, and the court 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 found that “a delay of 10 months for an unrepresented prison inmate to file a petition for writ of 2 habeas corpus in the Court of Appeal, after denial of a similar petition in the superior court, [is 3 not] unreasonable.” In re Burdan, 169 Cal. App. 4th 18, 31 (2008). Because this opinion may 4 bear directly on the magistrate judge’s finding that petitioner’s “unexplained 234-day delay 5 between the state superior court’s denial and the filing of his state appellate court petition was 6 unreasonable,” the court will order respondent to respond to petitioner’s amended objections. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Petitioner’s amended objections are deemed timely; 9 2. Respondent is ordered to file a response to petitioner’s amended objections not 10 later than February 6, 2009. 11 DATED: January 29, 2009 12 13 14 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE / 15 16 17 18 19 20 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.