Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02237/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02237-9/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

BENJAMIN ADAMS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2237 RRB JFM P

vs.

TERESA SCHWARTZ, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 17, 2008, petitioner filed a request to

be returned back to pro per status. Petitioner complains that counsel has not filed a traverse on

his behalf.

First, petitioner may not file documents pro se as he is presently represented by

counsel. Petitioner’s counsel received notice of this filing via the court’s electronic docketing

program. If petitioner wishes to proceed on his own without counsel he and his lawyer must first

obtain permission of the court as described in Local Rule 83-182(d). Until he has that

permission, petitioner is cautioned that all further filings must be submitted by counsel. 

Second, petitioner is informed that neither he nor his lawyer has any deadline

pending at this time. As noted in the May 1, 2007 findings and recommendations, respondent

was granted thirty days from any order adopting the findings and recommendations to file an

Case 2:05-cv-02237-JAM -JFM Document 38 Filed 01/25/08 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

answer, and petitioner’s traverse would be due thirty days thereafter. Respondent is not required

to file an answer because the district court has not yet issued an order addressing or adopting the

May 1, 2007 findings and recommendations. Until the present findings and recommendations

are addressed it is not clear when, if ever, petitioner will be required to file a traverse. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s January 17, 2008

request is denied.

DATED: January 24, 2008. 

/001; adam2237.aty 

Case 2:05-cv-02237-JAM -JFM Document 38 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 2