Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01129/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01129-4/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

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

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1), the parties have 

consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge 

to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry 

of final judgment, by manifesting their consent in writings signed 

by the parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on 

July 26, 2012, and on behalf of Respondent on March 14, 2013.

Pending before the Court is the Petitioner’s motion to compel 

Respondent to send to Petitioner copies of documents that Respondent 

lodged with this Court when Respondent filed an answer to the 

GEORGE TYLER,

 Petitioner,

v.

RON BARNES, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01129-SKO-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT (DOC. 29)

Case 1:12-cv-01129-SKO Document 33 Filed 09/18/13 Page 1 of 2
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

petition on May 15, 2013. In response to Petitioner’s request, 

Respondent noted that the documents lodged in connection with the 

answer constituted copies of documents from state court proceedings 

on direct appeal and involving collateral challenges concerning 

Petitioner’s commitment offenses; thus, Petitioner should have 

copies of the documents. Respondent offered to provide Petitioner 

with documents providing that Petitioner specified the precise 

documents he was missing. (Doc. 30, 2.) 

Petitioner did not reply, and there is no indication that 

Petitioner has further specified any documents that he wishes to 

have furnished. Further, the Court notes that about one month after 

Respondent made the offer, Petitioner filed a traverse to the 

Respondent’s answer, but Petitioner did not raise any issue 

concerning his need for copies of any state court records.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to compel is DISMISSED as 

moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01129-SKO Document 33 Filed 09/18/13 Page 2 of 2