Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

LINZY v. FAULK, 14-cv-00962-RM. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Colorado Number: infdco20140919790 Visitors: 16
Filed: Sep. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge. Applicant, Alex Homer Linzy, a Colorado prisoner, has filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging the validity of his convictions and sentence imposed in the District Court of County of Denver, Colorado. On July 16, 2014, I entered an Order to Dismiss in Part and for Answer. (ECF No. 21). Respondents filed their Amended Answer to the merits of the remaining claims on August 14, 2014. (ECF No. 31). Applicant's
More

ORDER

RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.

Applicant, Alex Homer Linzy, a Colorado prisoner, has filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the validity of his convictions and sentence imposed in the District Court of County of Denver, Colorado. On July 16, 2014, I entered an Order to Dismiss in Part and for Answer. (ECF No. 21). Respondents filed their Amended Answer to the merits of the remaining claims on August 14, 2014. (ECF No. 31). Applicant's Reply is pending.

On August 28, 2014, Mr. Linzy filed a Motion for Order to Compel Production of Relevant Portions of Record Pursuant to Rule 5(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. (ECF No. 32). In the Motion, Applicant requests copies of all portions of the state court record cited by the Respondents in their Amended Answer.

Rule 5(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states, in relevant part: "The respondent must attach to the answer parts of the transcript that the respondent considers relevant."

Respondents filed a Response to Motion to Compel on September 10, 2014. Attached to the Response are all portions of the state court record cited by Respondents in their Amended Answer. Mr. Linzy thus has been afforded the relief requested in his Motion. Furthermore, Applicant filed his Reply to the Respondents' Answer on September 16, 2014. (ECF No. 34). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Motion for Order to Compel Production of Relevant Portions of Record Pursuant to Rule 5(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. (ECF No. 32) is DENIED as moot.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer