LUCERO v. CULLEN, 12cv0957 LKK EFB P. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20130827b19
Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 26, 2013
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. Still pending before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss the habeas petition based upon Petitioner's failure to obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit to file it as a second or successive petition. See ECF No. 14. The docket now shows that Petitioner has obtained counsel, upon the court's order that one be appointed for him, and has petitioned the Ninth Circuit for permission to file a second or successive petition. See ECF Nos. 26 (order a
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. Still pending before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss the habeas petition based upon Petitioner's failure to obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit to file it as a second or successive petition. See ECF No. 14. The docket now shows that Petitioner has obtained counsel, upon the court's order that one be appointed for him, and has petitioned the Ninth Circuit for permission to file a second or successive petition. See ECF Nos. 26 (order ap..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge.
Still pending before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss the habeas petition based upon Petitioner's failure to obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit to file it as a second or successive petition. See ECF No. 14. The docket now shows that Petitioner has obtained counsel, upon the court's order that one be appointed for him, and has petitioned the Ninth Circuit for permission to file a second or successive petition. See ECF Nos. 26 (order appointing Federal Defender as counsel for Petitioner), 29 (order substituting counsel for Petitioner), 30 (notification that Petitioner's Application for Permission to File a Second or Successive Habeas Corpus Petition was filed in the Ninth Circuit).
Accordingly, defendant's motion (ECF No. 14), is hereby DENIED without prejudice to its renewal once the Ninth Circuit has ruled on Petitioner's application for permission to file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
