Opinion
1:11-cv-00616 LJO MJS HC
03-19-2013
PATRICIA ANNE ORDWAY, Petitioner, v. MILLER, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[Doc. 30]
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner filed the present petition on April 21, 2011. On March 7, 2012, Respondent, as ordered, filed an answer to the petition. On March 26, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment asserting as grounds that Respondent's answer responded to claims in the original, rather than the amended, petition for writ of habeas corpus.
On April 24, 2012, Respondent filed an amended answer to the petition. Respondent also filed an accompanying letter acknowledging the inadvertent response to the original answer, but noting that the claims, though renumbered, were the same in both petitions. Respondent submitted an amended answer to conform to the numbering of claims present in the amended petition.
Petitioner's motion for summary judgment is denied. While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied to habeas proceedings, Petitioner's motion for summary judgment is not appropriate in this instance. See Rule 12, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Court ordered Respondent to address the merits of Petitioner's claims. Respondent has done so. The Court shall address the merits of the petition in due course.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Petitioner's motion of summary judgment is DENIED. (ECF No. 30.) IT IS SO ORDERED.
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE