Diaz

(HC) Peterson v. Diaz

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 2, 20192:19-cv-01480California512 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD ANTHONY PETERSON, No. 2:19-cv-01480 GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

RALPH M. DIAZ,

15 Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. The matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(c). Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 10. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied to habeas proceedings, “to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these rules[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 12. A motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 56 is not appropriate in this instance because the court will address the merits of the petition accordingly with its scheduling order. Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition on July 30, 2019. ECF No. 1. The court directed respondent to file…

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.