Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01029/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01029-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL D. FOOTE,

Petitioner, No. 2:08-cv-1029-LKK-JFM (PC)

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus filed May 12, 2008. On May 23, 2008, petitioner filed a

document entitled “Motion in Support of Proper Course of Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254;

Expungement of an Erroneous - Exaggerated; Aggravated; Controversial; Recurring Disciplinary

Record.” Petitioner appended a copy of Drake v. Felker, 2007 WL 4404432 (E.D. Cal. 2007),

which petitioner argues supports his motion, as well as a copy of documents he obtained from his

central file. 

On May 28, 2008, the undersigned directed respondents to file their answer. 

In habeas cases, the Federal Rules contemplate the filing of a petition, an answer,

and a traverse. See Rules 2 & 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because the underlying

petition seeks expungement of the disciplinary discussed in his motion, the content of petitioner’s

Case 2:08-cv-01029-LKK -JFM Document 9 Filed 06/05/08 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

2

May 23, 2008 motion is more appropriately raised in his traverse, which is due thirty days after

respondents file their answer. Petitioner need not file a separate motion; the question of

expungement of the prison disciplinary has been placed at issue by the filing of the petition. 

Petitioner may file his supporting points and authorities and evidence in his traverse. 

Accordingly, the court will deny petitioner’s May 23, 2008 motion as premature.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's May

23, 2008 motion for expungement is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: June 4, 2008.

/001;foot1029.mot

Case 2:08-cv-01029-LKK -JFM Document 9 Filed 06/05/08 Page 2 of 2