Broomfield

(HC)(DP) Hillhouse v. Broomfield

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 20, 20242:03-cv-00142California323 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANNIE RAY HILLHOUSE, No. 2:03-CV-0142-MCE-DMC Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE v. ORDER TRAVIS PENNINGTON, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court are the following unopposed motions: (1) Petitioner’s motion to substitute respondent following Petitioner’s transfer to the California Institute for Men, ECF No. 307; and (2) Petitioner’s motion for a 45-day extension of time to file Petitioner’s merits brief, ECF No. 306. Good cause appearing therefor, Petitioner’s motion to substitute will be granted. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (the proper respondent in a federal habeas case is the person who has custody of the petitioner); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rule 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.