Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01011/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01011-2/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES MICHAEL HASSINGER,

Petitioner,

 v.

DERREL ADAMS, Warden,

Substance Abuse and Treatment Center,

Corcoran, California,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-01011 WHA

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

AND ORAL ARGUMENT

After the Court posted the denial of Charles Michael Hassinger’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, he filed requests for an evidentiary hearing and for oral argument. Those

requests are DENIED AS MOOT because there was no petition pending at the time the requests

were made. 

As required by Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts, this Court already had examined the record and determined that no

evidentiary hearing was warranted. 

Habeas Corpus Local Rules 2254-7(a) and 2254-8(a) both provide that parties to a

habeas action must make requests for evidentiary hearings and oral arguments within fifteen

days of the filing of the traverse, if ever. In the instant case, the denial of the petition was filed

within eleven days of filing of the traverse. Petitioner’s rights under the Local Habeas Corpus

Rules were not impacted adversely by having fewer fifteen days after the filing of the traverse

to make his requests. First, nothing in those rules divested the Court of its power to decide the

Case 3:05-cv-01011-WHA Document 33 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

petition in less than fifteen days. Second, under Rule 2254-1, “[t]he application of these rules to

a particular petition may be modified by the Judge to whom the petition is assigned.” To the

extent that this Court’s orders are arguably inconsistent with Rules 2254-7(a) and 2254-8(a), if

at all, their application to Mr. Hassinger’s petition is modified to allow a decision on the merits

to be filed before the fifteen-day period has passed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01011-WHA Document 33 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2