Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00302/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00302-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUDY CASTILLO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

F B HAWS, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—00302-LJO-BAM-HC

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO

FILE NO LATER THAN FORTY-FIVE

DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

A RESPONSE TO THE PETITION IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT’S

PREVIOUS ORDER (Doc. 11)

ORDER PERMITTING PETITIONER TO

FILE A TRAVERSE IN THIRTY (30)

DAYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

COURT’S PREVIOUS ORDER (Doc. 11)

ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO

PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

COURT’S PREVIOUS ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. 

On March 15, 2012, the Court issued an order that directed

Respondent to file a response to the petition and set a briefing

schedule for the Petitioner to file a traverse to any response

filed by Respondent.

On May 14, 2012, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the

1

Case 1:12-cv-00302-LJO-BAM Document 27 Filed 03/12/13 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

petition. On March 6, 2013, the motion was denied, and the

matter was referred back to the Magistrate Judge to direct the

filing of a response to the petition.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) Respondent shall FILE no later than forty-five (45) days

after the date of service of this order an answer to the

petition; and 

2) Petitioner may FILE a traverse to the answer no later

than thirty (30) days after the date of service of the answer on

Petitioner; and 

3) The parties are DIRECTED to proceed in accordance with

the Court’s order of March 15, 2012, which, except as modified

herein, remains in effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 11, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-00302-LJO-BAM Document 27 Filed 03/12/13 Page 2 of 2