Diaz

(HC) Peterson v. Diaz

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 20202:19-cv-01480California585 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

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

RECOMMENDATIONS

RALPH M. DIAZ, Respondent. 16 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. Petitioner has filed a motion for summary judgment, in actuality a motion for entry of default, because petitioner believes respondent violated this court’s order on the filing of a motion or answer by filing an untimely motion. The motion [for default] is not well…

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.