Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00329/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00329-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Kernan
Respondent
Michael Keith Williams
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

MICHAEL KEITH WILLIAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00329 OWW LJO HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. #18]

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 16, 2006, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to file a response.

Respondent was granted leave to file a motion to dismiss based on several bases. Respondent filed a

motion to dismiss on August 21, 2006, alleging Petitioner had violated the one-year statute of

limitations. On October 2, 2006, Petitioner filed his opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. 

Thereafter, Respondent filed two requests for extensions of time in order to investigate

Petitioner’s claims in his opposition and reply thereto. Respondent was granted his requests.

Case 1:06-cv-00329-OWW -GSA Document 28 Filed 12/20/06 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

On December 12, 2006, Respondent filed the instant request to withdraw his motion to

dismiss based on his review of Petitioner’s lengthy medical records. Good cause having been

presented and good cause appearing therefor, Respondent’s request is GRANTED. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Respondent’s motion to withdraw his motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

2. Respondent SHALL FILE a RESPONSE within thirty (30) days of the date of service of

this order. Respondent SHALL INCLUDE with the Answer any and all transcripts or other

documents necessary for the resolution of the issues presented in the Petition. Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. Any argument by Respondent that Petitioner has procedurally

defaulted a claim(s) SHALL BE MADE in the ANSWER that also addresses the merits of the claims

asserted.

3. Petitioner’s TRAVERSE, if any, is due thirty (30) days from the date Respondent’s

Answer is filed with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00329-OWW -GSA Document 28 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 2