Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02606/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02606-5/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL WAYNE KING,

Petitioner,

 v.

BOB HOREL,

Respondent /

No. C 06-2606 MMC (PR)

ORDER RE: BRIEFING ON PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

By order filed April 26, 2006, the Court directed respondent to file either a motion to

dismiss or an answer in response to the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The

Court’s order provided that, in the event respondent filed an answer, the Court would “issue

a further briefing schedule, directing the parties to address the merits of the claims set forth

in the petition, and, specifically, to address whether petitioner is entitled to relief under 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d).” (See Order of Service; Directing Respondent to File Response to

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 4:1-4.) On July 20, 2006, respondent filed an answer

to the petition, which answer was accompanied by a separately-filed memorandum of

points and authorities in support of the answer.

In light of respondent’s having filed an answer, and in conformity with the Court’s

April 26, 2006 order, the Court directed petitioner to file, no later than August 25, 2006, a

memorandum of points and authorities in support of his petition, and directed respondent to

Case 3:06-cv-02606-MMC Document 20 Filed 12/11/06 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

1

The Court additionally set a deadline for petitioner to file a reply.

2

Because September 24, 2006 was a Sunday, petitioner’s memorandum was timely

filed on Monday, September 25, 2006.

3

In the event respondent files a memorandum, the Court will, if satisfied good cause

exists to consider such filing, set a deadline for petitioner to reply thereto.

2

file, no later than September 15, 2006, a memorandum of points and authorities in

opposition to the petition.1

 Thereafter, by order filed August 31, 2006, the Court granted

petitioner’s request to extend to September 24, 2006 the deadline to file his memorandum,

and, additionally, extended to October 15, 2006 the deadline for respondent to file his

memorandum. Subsequently, on September 25, 2006, petitioner filed a memorandum of

points and authorities in support of his petition.2 To date, respondent has not filed a

memorandum of points and authorities as required by the Court’s order of August 31, 2006.

It appears respondent may be of the view the memorandum respondent filed on July

20, 2006 suffices to respond to the arguments made in petitioner’s later-filed memorandum. 

If, in fact, respondent holds such view, respondent shall inform the Court by notice filed no

later than December 22, 2006. Alternatively, if respondent wishes to file a memorandum to

respond to the arguments made by petitioner in his memorandum filed September 25,

2006, respondent shall file, no later than December 22, 2006, such memorandum, along

with a declaration setting forth any good cause that exists to excuse the untimely filing.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02606-MMC Document 20 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 2