Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00005/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00005-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

 Pursuant to the Court’s February 25, 2005, order directing Respondent to file a response, Petitioner’s

traverse is due within thirty days from the date Respondent filed his answer. (Court Doc. 6.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAVIN E. ALLEN,

Petitioner,

v.

PAUL M. SCHULTZ,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-0005 REC SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Doc. 8]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 3, 2005. 

Respondent filed a response to the petition on April 26, 2005.1 

On April 13, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to

Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

A motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d) is essentially a motion for an

order deeming issues to be without substantial controversy. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(d). Summary

judgment is a procedural device available for prompt and expeditious disposition of controversy

without trial when there is no dispute as to material fact. Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus. "[T]he writ of habeas corpus is not a proceeding in the original criminal

Case 1:05-cv-00005-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 05/13/05 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

prosecution but an independent civil suit." Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U.S. 333, 335-336, 43 S.Ct. 555,

555 (1923); See, e.g. Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 14, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1722 (1992)

(O’Connor, J., dissenting). Modern habeas corpus procedure has the same function as an

ordinary appeal. Anderson v. Butler, 886 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1989); O’Neal v. McAnnich,

513 U.S. 440, 442, 115 S.Ct. 992 (1995) (federal court’s function in habeas corpus proceedings

is to "review errors in state criminal trials"(emphasis omitted)). In a habeas proceeding,

petitioner does not proceed to "trial." Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is improper. 

For all practical purposes, summary judgment is equivalent to the Court’s making a

determination on the merits of a habeas petition. As the Court will rule on the petition for writ of

habeas corpus after briefing by the parties and in due course, a motion for summary judgment in

a habeas proceeding serves no purpose. Accordingly, the request for summary judgment is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00005-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 05/13/05 Page 2 of 2