Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00816/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00816-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIONEL FALCON,

Petitioner,

v.

LEANN CHRONES,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-00816 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT ANSWER TO PETITION AND

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by Ann C. McClintock, Esq. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 22, 2005. (Court

Doc. 1.) By order of August 1, 2005, the Court directed Respondent to submit a response to the

petition. (Court Doc. 7.) On September 29, 2005, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the

petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Court Doc. 8.) Petitioner filed an opposition on

October 19, 2005. (Court Doc. 8.) On November 29, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint

counsel. (Court Doc. 9.) On December 21, 2005, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to

appoint counsel and appointed the Office of the Federal Defender to represent Petitioner. (Court

Doc. 11.) The Court granted Petitioner permission to file, through counsel, a supplemental

opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Id.) Petitioner filed a supplemental opposition

on February 3, 2006. (Court Doc. 13.) On September 12, 2006, the Court denied Respondent’s

motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Court Doc. 14.)

Case 1:05-cv-00816-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 09/18/06 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

2

Based on the denial of Respondent’s motion to dismiss, the Court will direct Respondent

to submit an answer to the petition. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order, Respondent shall

submit an answer to the petition; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date Respondent files her answer, Petitioner may

file a traverse; and

3. All other provisions set forth in the Court’s August 1, 2005, order to respond,

remain in full force and effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 15, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00816-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 2