Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00322/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00322-4/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

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

KELLY ALICE KESSLER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

TINA HORNBEAK, Warden, et al.,) 

 )

Respondents. )

)

 )

1:10-cv—0322-OWW-SMS-HC

ORDER DEEMING RESPONDENT’S

“STATEMENT REGARDING EVIDENTIARY

HEARING” TO BE A REQUEST TO

SUBMIT OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND

OPPOSITION

ORDER PERMITTING PETITIONER TO

FILE A REPLY TO THE OPPOSITION NO

LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER

THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

DEADLINE FOR FILING A REPLY:

THIRTY (30) DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel 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 Local Rules 302 and 303. 

On April 5, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion for an

evidentiary hearing which was electronically served on

Respondent. No opposition to the motion was filed. On July 27,

2011, the Court ordered consideration of the motion deferred

until the merits of the petition were considered. On July 28,

2011, Respondent served and filed a “Statement Regarding

Evidentiary Hearing,” in which Respondent explained why no

opposition to the motion was filed, and which contained points

1

Case 1:10-cv-00322-LJO-BAM Document 41 Filed 07/29/11 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

and authorities concerning the motion.

Despite its title, the “Statement” is DEEMED to be a request

for leave to file opposition due to developing law, and to be

opposition to the motion. The request is GRANTED, and the

statement is considered to be Respondent’s opposition to the

motion. 

Petitioner may FILE a reply to the opposition no later than

thirty days after the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00322-LJO-BAM Document 41 Filed 07/29/11 Page 2 of 2