Filed: Oct. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 27, 2014
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO RESPONDENT CONCERNING NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME ORDER PERMITTING PETITIONER TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL TRAVERSE NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge. Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas cor
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO RESPONDENT CONCERNING NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME ORDER PERMITTING PETITIONER TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL TRAVERSE NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge. Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corp..
More
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER
INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO RESPONDENT CONCERNING NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME
ORDER PERMITTING PETITIONER TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL TRAVERSE NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry of final judgment, by manifesting their consent in writings signed by the parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on May 31 and June 11, 2012, and on behalf of Respondent on September 26, 2012.
Pending before the Court is the Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Review of the answer and amended answer filed by Respondent in this proceeding shows that Respondent appears to have completely failed to answer Petitioner's numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
A court has inherent power to control its docket and the disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court exercises its discretion to direct the filing of a supplemental answer on the part of Respondent in order to avoid any further delay and to facilitate the efficient use of the resources of the parties and the Court. Respondent shall file a supplemental answer within 30 days of the date of service of this order.
However, in view of the fact that Respondent has already been given four months to file the answer, the state court record has already been filed, and further in view of the passage of time in this proceeding, Respondent is INFORMED that any further request for an extension of time should be avoided and would be granted only on the basis of strict necessity or emergency.
Petitioner may FILE a supplemental traverse no later than thirty (30) days after the date of service of the supplemental answer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
