SMITH v. STATE, 1:11-cv-265-MP-GRJ. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120208882
Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 07, 2012
Summary: ORDER GARY R. JONES, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Doc. 14, Petitioner's Motion To Dismiss (Curtail) State's Motion Of Continuance — Due To A Procedural Bar. Petitioner has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 seeking release from a civil commitment order entered against him in state court. (Doc. 4.) Respondents recently requested an extension of time to respond to the Petition so that the July 14, 2011 state court commitment hearing c
Summary: ORDER GARY R. JONES, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Doc. 14, Petitioner's Motion To Dismiss (Curtail) State's Motion Of Continuance — Due To A Procedural Bar. Petitioner has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 seeking release from a civil commitment order entered against him in state court. (Doc. 4.) Respondents recently requested an extension of time to respond to the Petition so that the July 14, 2011 state court commitment hearing co..
More
ORDER
GARY R. JONES, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Doc. 14, Petitioner's Motion To Dismiss (Curtail) State's Motion Of Continuance — Due To A Procedural Bar. Petitioner has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking release from a civil commitment order entered against him in state court. (Doc. 4.) Respondents recently requested an extension of time to respond to the Petition so that the July 14, 2011 state court commitment hearing could be transcribed. (Doc. 12.) The Court granted the request and extended the time to respond to the Petition until March 5, 2012. (Doc. 13.)
In his motion, Petitioner requests the Court to dismiss the Respondents' motion for an extension of time to respond to the Petition and order his immediate release, contending that Petitioner's constitutional rights were violated because the hearing had not been transcribed. Because the Court has granted the Respondent's motion for an extension of time Petitioner's request to dismiss the request is moot. As to the Plaintiff's request for immediate release, the transcript of the state court hearing committing Petitioner to custody will play an essential role in the Court's review of the Petition. (Doc. 4.) Accordingly, Petitioner's request is denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Petitioner's Motion To Dismiss (Curtail) State's Motion Of Continuance — Due To A Procedural Bar (Doc. 14) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
