Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00418/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00418-0/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

1 06cv0418

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN CADENA, Civil No. 06cv0418-JAH (CAB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO RESCIND

PETITIONER’S TRAVERSE REPLY

BRIEF AND PROCEED WITH 2254

HABEAS PETITION

[Doc. No. 19]

v.

G. HALL, Warden of CRC,

Respondent.

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 15, 2007, this Court lifted a stay in this matter and allowed the

underlying petition for writ of habeas corpus to go forward [Doc. No. 14.] The Court ordered that

Respondent file either a motion to dismiss or an answer to the petition by May 1, 2007. The Court

further ordered that, if an answer was filed, Petitioner could file a traverse to matters raised in the answer

no later than June 1, 2007. 

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on May 1, 2007. On May 24, 2007, the Court

received Petitioner’s traverse [Doc. No. 18.] Initially, the traverse was believed to be untimely, but then

was recognized by this Court as timely. Therefore, on May 30, 2007, this Court allowed the traverse to

be filed nunc pro tunc [Doc. No.17.] 

In the Notice of Request to Rescind Petitioner’s Traverse Reply Brief and Proceed with 2254

habeas Petition [Doc. No. 19], it appears that Petitioner believes that the discrepancy order issued by this

Case 3:06-cv-00418-JAH-CAB Document 20 Filed 12/03/07 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 06cv0418

Court on May 30, 2007, somehow rejected his traverse and that, as a result, his petition for writ of

habeas corpus cannot go forward. The discrepancy order, however, actually allowed his traverse to be

filed. The case is now deemed fully briefed, is proceeding in the normal course, and is under submission

by this Court. Therefore Petitioner’s request to rescind Petitioner’s traverse reply brief and proceed with

2254 habeas petition is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 3, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00418-JAH-CAB Document 20 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 2