Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00706/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00706-1/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

K:\COMMON\Adler\HABEAS\OPEN\Portillo\order setting briefing schedule 6 22 2010.wpd, 62210 -1- 08cv0706

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN PORTILLO, Civil No. 08-0706 LAB (JMA)

Petitioner, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

v.

VICTOR ALMAGER, Warden,

Respondent.

On April 16, 2008, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) On May 1, 2008, the Hon. Larry A. Burns

dismissed this case without prejudice because Petitioner failed to allege exhaustion of his state

judicial remedies. (Doc. No. 2.) Petitioner was instructed that to have this case reopened he

had to file a First Amended Petition no later than June 25, 2008. On May 13, 2008, Petitioner

filed a First Amended Petition pursuant to this Court’s Order. (Doc. No. 3.) On November 20,

2008, this case was stayed until the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 527

F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2008). (Doc. No. 9.) The mandate in Hayward was issued on June 10, 2010,

and District Judge Burns subsequently reopened this case and directed a scheduling order be

issued. (Doc. No. 14.) In accordance with District Judge Burns’ order, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. If Respondent contends the First Amended Petition can be decided without the Court’s

reaching the merits of Petitioner’s claims (e.g., because Respondent contends Petitioner has

Case 3:08-cv-00706-LAB-JMA Document 15 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 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 1

 If Respondent contends Petitioner has failed to exhaust any state remedies as to any ground for relief alleged in

the Petition, the motion to dismiss shall also specify the state remedies still available to Petitioner.

K:\COMMON\Adler\HABEAS\OPEN\Portillo\order setting briefing schedule 6 22 2010.wpd, 62210 -2- 08cv0706

failed to exhaust any state remedies as to any ground for relief alleged in the Petition, or that the

First Amended Petition is barred by the statute of limitations, or that the First Amended Petition

is subject to dismissal under Rule 9 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, or that all of the

claims are procedurally defaulted, or that Petitioner is not in custody), Respondent shall file a

motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases no later than August

13, 2010. The motion to dismiss shall not address the merits of Petitioner’s claims, but rather

shall address all grounds upon which Respondent contends dismissal without reaching the merits

of Petitioner’s claims is warranted.1

 At the time the motion to dismiss is filed, Respondent shall

lodge with the Court all records bearing on Respondent’s contention in this regard. A hearing

date is not required for the motion to dismiss.

2. If Respondent files a motion to dismiss, Petitioner shall file his opposition, if any, to

the motion no later than September 10, 2010. At the time the opposition is filed, Petitioner shall

lodge with the Court any records not lodged by Respondent which Petitioner believes may be

relevant to the Court’s determination of the motion.

3. Unless the Court orders otherwise, Respondent shall not file a reply to Petitioner’s

opposition to a motion to dismiss. If the motion is denied, the Court will afford Respondent

adequate time to respond to Petitioner’s claims on the merits.

4. If Respondent does not contend that the First Amended Petition can be decided

without the Court reaching the merits of Petitioner’s claims, Respondent shall file and serve an

answer to the Petition, and a memorandum of points and authorities in support of such answer,

pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases no later than September 3, 2010. At

the time the answer is filed, Respondent shall lodge with the Court all records bearing on the

merits of Petitioner’s claims. The lodgments shall be accompanied by a notice of lodgment

which shall be captioned “Notice of Lodgment in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus Case —

To Be Sent to Clerk’s Office.” Respondent shall not combine separate pleadings, orders or

Case 3:08-cv-00706-LAB-JMA Document 15 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 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

K:\COMMON\Adler\HABEAS\OPEN\Portillo\order setting briefing schedule 6 22 2010.wpd, 62210 -3- 08cv0706

other items into a combined lodgment entry. Each item shall be numbered separately and

sequentially.

5. Petitioner may file a traverse to matters raised in the answer no later than October 1,

2010. Any traverse by Petitioner (a) shall state whether Petitioner admits or denies each

allegation of fact contained in the answer; (b) shall be limited to facts or arguments responsive

to matters raised in the answer; and (c) shall not raise new grounds for relief that were not

asserted in the Petition. Grounds for relief withheld until the traverse will not be considered.

No traverse shall exceed ten (10) pages in length absent advance leave of Court for good cause

shown.

6. A request by a party for an extension of time within which to file any of the pleadings

required by this Order should be made in advance of the due date of the pleading, and the Court

will grant such a request only upon a showing of good cause. Any such request shall be

accompanied by a declaration under penalty of perjury explaining why an extension of time is

necessary.

7. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, this case shall be deemed submitted on the day

following the date Petitioner’s opposition to a motion to dismiss and/or his traverse is due.

8. Every document delivered to the Court must include a certificate of service attesting

that a copy of such document was served on opposing counsel (or on the opposing party, if such

party is not represented by counsel). Any document delivered to the Court without a certificate

of service will be returned to the submitting party and will be disregarded by the Court.

9. Petitioner shall immediately notify the Court and counsel for Respondent of any change

of Petitioner’s address. If Petitioner fails to keep the Court informed of where Petitioner may

be contacted, this action will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 22, 2010

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00706-LAB-JMA Document 15 Filed 06/22/10 Page 3 of 3