Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00037/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00037-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLAF PETER JUDA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

RAYMOND D. ANDREWS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 05-0037 AWI WMW HC

ORDER DISREGARDING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

GRANTING PETITIONER

EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE OPPOSITION TO

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. 26]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. On November 20, 2006, Respondent filed a

motion to dismiss. In response to that motion, Petitioner filed a motion for summary

judgment.

Petitioner is hereby informed that summary judgment is a procedural device available

for prompt and expeditious disposition of a controversy which would normally be resolved

through a trial. Summary judgment is a method to avoid 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

Case 1:05-cv-00037-AWI-WMW Document 27 Filed 12/08/06 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 2

corpus is not a proceeding in the original criminal 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 (5 Cir. 1989); O’Neal v. McAnnich, 513 U.S. 440, 442, 115 S.Ct. th

992 (1995) (federal court’s function in habeas corpus proceedings is to “review errors in state

criminal trials”(emphasis omitted)). In a habeas proceeding, the petitioner does not proceed

to trial. Therefore, Petitioner’s 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 in

due course, a motion for summary judgment in a habeas proceeding serves no purpose. 

Accordingly, the request for summary judgment will be DISREGARDED.

Petitioner is informed that if he wishes to contest Respondent’s motion to dismiss, he

must do so by filing an opposition to that motion. Petitioner is HEREBY GRANTED thirty

(30) days from the date of service of this order within which to file an opposition to

Respondent’s motion to dismiss. Respondent is granted fifteen (15) days thereafter to file a

reply. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00037-AWI-WMW Document 27 Filed 12/08/06 Page 2 of 2