Jackson v. Spencer

First Circuit

Jackson v. Spencer

64 F. App'x 791

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJune 12, 2003

Docket02-2203

StatusPublished

This text of 64 F. App'x 791 (Jackson v. Spencer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 F. App'x 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-spencer-ca1-2003.