Jackson v. Spencer

First Circuit

Jackson v. Spencer

64 F. App'x 791

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided June 12, 2003·No. 02-2203·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. We affirm, essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum of decision, dated August 12, 2002.

We reject appellant’s contention that his habeas petition was dismissed by the district court without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Appellant, in fact, filed an opposition to the state’s motion to dismiss, which the court considered. Although appellant sought to file a second response to the motion to dismiss, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing that request. Further, there was no abuse of discretion in denying appellant’s motion seeking an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed.

Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, LIPEZ and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. We affirm, essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum of decision, dated August 12, 2002.

We reject appellant’s contention that his habeas petition was dismissed by the district court without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Appellant, in fact, filed an opposition to the state’s motion to dismiss, which the court considered. Although appellant sought to file a second response to the motion to dismiss, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing that request. Further, there was no abuse of discretion in denying appellant’s motion seeking an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed.

Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, LIPEZ and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.

Jackson v. Spencer, 64 F. App'x 791 (1st Cir. 2003).

Pincite

64 F. App'x 791 (Jackson v. Spencer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.