Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02128/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02128-0/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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Herbert Jackson,

Petitioner,

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2128-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it the petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1), the answer (doc.

13), the reply (doc. 21), the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

(doc. 24), and the petitioner's objection thereto (doc. 25). Respondents did not respond to

the objection. Rule 8(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; 28 U.S.C. § 636; and the Report

and Recommendation all permit a party to file objections to the Report and Recommendation,

but none provide for a response thereto. Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., however, permits a

party to respond to an objection within 10 days of its service. At all events, a response would

be helpful here. Rather than object to the Report and Recommendation's analysis or

conclusions, petitioner seeks to supplement his petition with factual allegations. IT IS

ORDERED that respondents shall, by July 28, 2006, file with the court a response

addressing the substance of petitioner's factual allegations, and the propriety of setting forth

those allegations at this late stage.

DATED this 19th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02128-FJM Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 1 of 1