Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06303/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06303-2/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO ORTIZ, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

A.A. LAMARQUE, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:03-cv-06303-AWI-TAG HC consolidated with 

1:05-cv-00213-OWW-DLB

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT 

(Doc. 42)

Petitioner Armando Ortiz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 17, 2003, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division (Doc. 1), which,

by order of the Court dated September 23, 2003, was transferred to the Fresno Division. (Doc.

4). After the Court apprised Petitioner that some of his claims appeared to be unexhausted, and

facing dismissal of his petition if he did not withdraw his unexhausted claims, Petitioner filed a

second petition in Case No. 1:05-cv-00213-OWW-DLB, containing claims raised in the original

petition as well as newly-exhausted claims.

Case 1:03-cv-06303-LJO-JMD Document 44 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 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

2

The Court considered Petitioner’s actions in light of the recently decided U.S.

Supreme Court’s decision in Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005). Accordingly, in an order

on April 25, 2005, the Court construed the petition in Case No. 1:05-cv-00213-OWW-DLB,

which included newly-exhausted claims, as an amended petition. (Doc. 38). In that order, the

Court also consolidated Case No. 1:05-cv-00213-OWW-DLB, with No. 1:03-cv-06303-AWITAG, and construed the petition filed in the former case to be the operative petition for both

cases. (Doc. 38). Respondent was ordered to file an answer within forty-five days of the date of

service of that order, or by June 9, 2005. (Doc. 38). On August 11, 2005, without yet having

responded to the Court’s April 25, 2005 order, Respondent filed the instant motion to set aside

default, alleging inadvertence and confusion in failing to timely file the answer. (Doc. 42). 

Because of the potential confusion that might have arisen from the lengthy order of April

25, 2005, because of the procedural complexity of this consolidated case, and because the

Court’s order gave Respondent only forty-five days to file an answer rather than the more

common ninety days, the Court finds that GOOD CAUSE exists for granting Respondent’s

motion. The Court perceives no prejudice to Petitioner in granting said motion.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for relief from default

(Doc. 42), is GRANTED. Respondent must file an answer to the amended petition within ten

(10) court days from the date of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06303-LJO-JMD Document 44 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 2