Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05948/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05948-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY FUENTEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

FRED BROWN, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:02-CV-05948 GSA HC

ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is represented by Barry L. Morris, Esq. Respondent is represented by

Melissa J. Lipon, Esq., of the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California.

On February 17, 2010, a Telephonic Status Conference was held before the undersigned for

the purpose of scheduling an evidentiary hearing in this matter. With the agreement of the parties,

the evidentiary hearing was set for May 18, 2010. In addition, the deadline for briefing was set for

April 19, 2010. (See Docket Entry #113). On April 20, 2010, Respondent submitted briefing and a

statement of witnesses. Respondent states a timely submission was attempted but mistakenly filed in

a different case. To date, the Court has not received briefing from Petitioner. 

Accordingly, Petitioner is DIRECTED to file his brief within five (5) days of the date of

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:02-cv-05948-GSA Document 116 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

service of this Order, or show cause why said brief has not been submitted.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 20, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Local Rule 110 provides: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court

1

may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power

of the Court.”

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:02-cv-05948-GSA Document 116 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 2