Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00355/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00355-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
K. Harrington
Respondent
Keith Seriales
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH SERIALES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

K. HARRINGTON, M ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:09-cv—00355-SKO-HC

ORDER DEFERRING DECISION

CONCERNING ADMISSIBILITY OF

EXHIBITS UNTIL THE COURT

CONSIDERS THE MERITS OF THE

PETITION (DOCS. 22, 30-33)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to

the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge to conduct

all further proceedings in the case, including the entry of final

judgment, by manifesting their consent in writings signed by the

parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on March

9, 2009, and on behalf of Respondent on September 17, 2009. The

case is proceeding on Petitioner’s first amended petition (FAP),

filed on February 3, 2010. (Doc. 23.) 

Petitioner has filed a “CD” which Petitioner represents is a

1

Case 1:09-cv-00355-BAM Document 34 Filed 01/04/11 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

copy of the reading of his Miranda rights received by his

appellate counsel from the state of California (Ex. A.) 

Petitioner did not serve a copy on Respondent because he states

that he did not have access to copies. Respondent has also

submitted an analog recording which Respondent represents was the

basis of the state appellate court’s findings on the pertinent

issue or issues. (Doc. 32.) The parties have briefed the

admissibility of the exhibits.

Although a response to the petition and a traverse have been

filed, the Court has not yet considered the petition on the

merits. The Court will consider the petition on the merits in

due course.

Accordingly, the Court DEFERS the decision on the

admissibility of the exhibits until the Court considers the

petition on the merits. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00355-BAM Document 34 Filed 01/04/11 Page 2 of 2