(HC) Witkin v. Yates, No. 2:2010cv00091 - Document 35 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/10/2011 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31 are ADOPTED in FULL; This action is construed as a challenge to petitioner's 2009 conviction as enhanced by his 2005 conviction; Respondent's 18 m otion to dismiss is DENIED; within 30 days from the date of this order respondent shall file either another motion to dismiss or an answer to the claims raised in the petition; If respondent files an answer, petitioner's reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 30 days after service of the answer; and if respondent files a motion, petitioner's opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within 30 days after service of the motion, and respondents' reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 14 days thereafter. (Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Witkin v. Yates Doc. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL AARON WITKIN, 11 12 13 14 Petitioner, vs. JAMES A. YATES, Warden, Respondent. 15 16 No. 2:10-cv-0091 GEB DAD (HC) ORDER / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ 17 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On February 11, 2011, 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 fourteen days. Petitioner 22 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 11, 2011, are adopted in 3 4 5 full; 2. This action is construed as a challenge to petitioner’s 2009 conviction as enhanced by his 2005 conviction; 6 3. Respondent’s August 16, 2010 motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 18) is denied; 7 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order respondent shall file either 8 9 10 11 another motion to dismiss or an answer to the claims raised in the petition; 5. If respondent files an answer, petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days after service of the answer; and 6. If respondent files a motion, petitioner’s opposition or statement of non- 12 opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty days after service of the motion, 13 and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed and served within fourteen days thereafter. 14 Dated: March 10, 2011 15 16 17 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 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.
