Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06100/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06100-1/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD A. BARKER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

GAIL LEWIS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 03 6100 AWI LJO HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT 

LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL

ANSWER

[Doc. 39]

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE

TO FILE TRAVERSE TO RESPONDENT’S

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 28, 2003, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California. By order of the Court dated August 5, 2003,

the action was transferred to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California.

On January 22, 2004, Respondent filed an answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

On March 16, 2004, Petitioner filed a traverse to Respondent’s answer. Since that time, Petitioner

has filed several requests for judicial notice of several federal cases, which this Court has granted.

On February 16, 2005, Respondent filed a motion requesting leave to file a supplemental

answer in light of two new decisions interpreting California’s parole statute: In re Dannenberg, 34

Case 1:03-cv-06100-AWI-LJO Document 40 Filed 07/22/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

Cal.4th 1061, 1084, 1087-88, 1097-98 (2005) and Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, No.

CIV. S 01-0835 MCE KJM P, [____ F. Supp. 2d ____ ] [2005 WL 1406100] [2005 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS ______] (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2005). Good cause having been presented and good cause

appearing therefor, Respondent’s request is GRANTED. 

Accordingly, Respondent’s supplemental answer is due within thirty (30) days of the date of

service of this order. Petitioner’s supplemental traverse, if any, is due within thirty (30) days of the

filing of Respondent’s supplemental answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06100-AWI-LJO Document 40 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 2