Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00616/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00616-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miller
Respondent
Patricia Anne Ordway
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

PATRICIA ANNE ORDWAY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

MILLER, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

________________________________)

1:11-cv-00616 LJO MJS HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Doc. 30]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner filed the present petition on April 21, 2011. On March 7, 2012, Respondent,

as ordered, filed an answer to the petition. On March 26, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion for

summary judgment asserting as grounds that Respondent’s answer responded to claims in

the original, rather than the amended, petition for writ of habeas corpus.

On April 24, 2012, Respondent filed an amended answer to the petition. Respondent

also filed an accompanying letter acknowledging the inadvertent response to the original

answer, but noting that the claims, though renumbered, were the same in both petitions.

Respondent submitted an amended answer to conform to the numbering of claims present in

the amended petition.

U.S. District Court

E. D. California -1-

Case 1:11-cv-00616-LJO-MJS Document 36 Filed 03/19/13 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

Petitioner's motion for summary judgment is denied. While the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure may be applied to habeas proceedings, Petitioner's motion for summary judgment

is not appropriate in this instance. See Rule 12, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The

Court ordered Respondent to address the merits of Petitioner's claims. Respondent has done

so. The Court shall address the merits of the petition in due course. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Petitioner’s motion of summary judgment is

DENIED. (ECF No. 30.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

92b0h UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California -2-

Case 1:11-cv-00616-LJO-MJS Document 36 Filed 03/19/13 Page 2 of 2