Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01357/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01357-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ULYSSES ALEXANDER RIOS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

S. FRAUENHEIM, Warden, 

 Respondent. 

Case No. 15-cv-01357 BLF (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REOPEN ACTION; LIFTING STAY; 

DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO 

SHOW CAUSE 

(Docket No. 35) 

 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction out of Santa Clara County. The 

Court denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss and granted Petitioner’s motion to stay the 

instant action under Kelly v. v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), while he exhausted an 

unexhausted claim regarding ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. (Docket Nos. 21, 

29.) Petitioner was directed to notify the Court within twenty-eight days of the California 

Supreme Court’s decision denying him relief to reopen this action by filing a motion to 

reopen this action. (Docket No. 29 at 2.) 

Petitioner has filed a motion to reopen this action and a second amended petition. 

(Docket No. 35.) Good cause appearing, the motion will be granted and the stay lifted. 

Case 5:15-cv-01357-BLF Document 39 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 3
 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Petitioner also requests an evidentiary hearing, (id. at 1), which is DENIED as premature. 

Petitioner asserts the following claims for federal habeas relief: (1) ineffective 

assistance of counsel; and (2) ineffective assistance by appellate counsel. (Docket No. 35 

at 5-6.) Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable and merit an answer from 

Respondent. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 

1. Good cause appearing, Petitioner’s motion to reopen this action is 

GRANTED. (Docket No. 35.) The stay is hereby LIFTED. The Clerk shall reopen the 

case. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60) 

days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should 

not be issued based on claim presented in the second amended petition. (Docket No. 35.) 

Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the 

state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a 

determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

 If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with 

the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the 

answer. 

 3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court 

and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twentyeight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the court and serve 

Case 5:15-cv-01357-BLF Document 39 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 3
 3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition. 

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded 

that all communications with the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true 

copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the Court and all 

parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of 

Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure 

to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

This order terminates Docket No. 35.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

 United States District Judge 

Order Granting Motion to Reopen; Lifting Stay; OSC 

P:\PRO-SE\BLF\HC.15\01357Rios_reopen&osc.docx 

Case 5:15-cv-01357-BLF Document 39 Filed 03/06/20 Page 3 of 3