Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02098/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02098-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin D. Biter
Respondent
Ceron Hill
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CERON HILL,

Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN D. BITER,

Respondent.

No. 2:12-CV-2098 MCE DAD P

ORDER

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed an answer to the petition on 

February 13, 2014. Thereafter, despite receiving numerous extensions of time, petitioner’s 

counsel of record failed to file a traverse. Accordingly, by order dated March 17, 2015, 

petitioner’s motion for substitution of counsel was granted and Joseph J. Wiseman appeared as 

petitioner’s new retained counsel of record. In that same order, petitioner was directed to file a 

traverse within 60 days. 

On May 14, 2015, petitioner filed a traverse. He also filed a separate request to expand 

the record to “at least” include a declaration from petitioner, which provides additional facts in 

support of his habeas claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the plea 

bargaining stage of these proceedings. Petitioner’s motion to expand the record was not set for 

hearing on this court’s calendar, as required by Local Rule 230(b). However, this court has 

Case 2:12-cv-02098-JKS Document 57 Filed 05/27/15 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

recently been advised through the courtroom deputy of the undersigned that the parties would like 

the court to set a hearing on petitioner’s motion. 

Good cause appearing, respondent will be ordered to file a response to petitioner’s motion 

to expand the record within thirty days from the filed date of this order. After receiving the 

opposition, this court will determine whether a hearing is required on the motion and will notify 

the parties accordingly.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, within thirty days from the date of this order, 

respondent shall file an opposition to petitioner’s request to expand the record (ECF No. 55.)

Dated: May 26, 2015

DAD:8

Hill2098.o

Case 2:12-cv-02098-JKS Document 57 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 2