Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00042/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00042-4/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RICHARD GIBSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

LEA ANN CHRONES, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

CV F 05 0042 AWI LJO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO DIRECT RESPONDENT TO

PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS

[Doc. #39]

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT OBJECTIONS

[Doc. #49]

ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS

[Doc. #38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On January 10, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. The petition for writ of habeas corpus does not challenge the underlying conviction; rather, it

challenges the January 3, 2002, decision of the California Board of Prison Terms to deny parole. 

On June 27, 2005, Respondent filed an answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

On July 13, 2005, Petitioner filed a traverse to Respondent’s answer. On July 15, 2005,

Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent’s contention that the petition was filed beyond the oneyear statute of limitations.

On August 22, 2005, the undersigned issued a Findings and Recommendation which

Case 1:05-cv-00042-AWI-GSA Document 53 Filed 07/25/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

recommended dismissal of the petition. The Findings and Recommendation provided that the parties

could file their written objections within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. On

August 29, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 

Thereafter, the Court received numerous objections which were filed in this case. On

September 2, 2005, Petitioner filed a second set of objections which was a duplicate of the first. On

September 7, 2005, Marc Grossman, Esq., filed objections on behalf of Petitioner. However, Marc

Grossman is neither party to this action nor counsel for Petitioner. On September 20, 2005, and

September 29, 2005, duplicates of Mr. Grossman’s objections were filed. On September 8, 2005, and

September 13, 2005, Petitioner filed a third, fourth, and fifth set of objections. The Findings and

Recommendation provided for the filing of one set of objections. Petitioner did not seek leave of

Court nor did the Findings and Recommendations allow for the filing of additional sets of

objections.

On September 2, 2005, Petitioner filed a request for a court order directing Respondent to

produce records and exhibits from a California case. He fails to make any showing why this would

be necessary.

Then, on March 3, 2006, Petitioner filed a request to file additional briefing. However,

briefing concluded in this case with the filing of his objections and the case is now under review by

the District Judge. The Court does not find good cause to reopen the matter for additional briefing at

this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Those objections specified above (Docs. # 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45) are STRICKEN; 

2) Petitioner’s request for a court order directing Respondent to produce documents is

DENIED; and

3) Petitioner’s request to file additional briefing is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00042-AWI-GSA Document 53 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 2