Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05773/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05773-4/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

GERALD L. TUCKER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

STUART J. RYAN, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-05773-REC-TAG HC

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT ANSWER

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SERVE DOCUMENTS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 11, 2005, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and

Recommendation recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed because

it contained claims that Petitioner had not fully exhausted in state court. (Doc. 28). On June 13,

2005, the Court issued an informational order (Doc. 35), apprising Petitioner of the United States

Supreme Court decision in Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005), which authorizes the limited

use of a “stay and abey” procedure in cases where, as here, a petitioner had filed a “mixed”

habeas corpus petition and where petitioner has met certain criteria. Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1535. 

The Court’s order gave Petitioner thirty days in which to respond before the Court would refer

the Report and Recommendation to the district judge. (Doc. 35). 

Case 1:04-cv-05773-LJO-TAG Document 40 Filed 08/18/05 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

1Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that upon the court’s

determination that summary dismissal is inappropriate, the “judge shall order the respondent to

file an answer or other pleading . . . or to take such other action as the judge deems appropriate.”

2The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are “applicable to habeas corpus proceedings to the

extent that the practice in such proceedings are not set forth in the statutes of the United States

and has heretofore conformed to the practice of civil actions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(2). Rule 11

also provides “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent

with these rules, may be applied, when appropriate, to the petitions filed under these rules.” Rule

11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

2

On June 24, 2005, in response to the Court’s informational order, Petitioner filed a

motion for leave to withdraw his unexhausted claims and proceed on his exhausted claims. 

(Doc. 36). As grounds therefore, Petitioner asserted that because his direct appeal has produced

a re-sentencing hearing on a prior conviction used to enhance his sentence, he wished to proceed

with the unexhausted claims after the unexhausted claims had been dismissed. (Id. at p. 2). 

On June 29, 2005, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that

Petitioner’s request to withdraw the unexhausted claims be granted. (Doc. 37). On August 3,

2005, the District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc.

38). 

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has conducted a

preliminary review of Petitioner’s petition subsequent to the District Judge’s order removing the

unexhausted claims.1 Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,2 the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Respondent SHALL FILE an ANSWER addressing the merits of the Petitioner’s

Petition within NINETY (90) days of the date of service of this order. Rule 4,

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Cluchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1473-

1474 (9th Cir. 1985) (court has discretion to fix time for filing an Answer.). 

2. Respondent SHALL INCLUDE with the Answer any and all transcripts or other

documents necessary for the resolution of the issues presented in the Petitioner’s

Petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Case 1:04-cv-05773-LJO-TAG Document 40 Filed 08/18/05 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

3

3. Any argument by Respondent that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim(s)

SHALL BE MADE in an ANSWER that also addresses the merits of the claims

asserted. This is to enable the Court to determine whether Petitioner meets an

exception to procedural default. See, Paradis v. Arave, 130 F.3d 385, 396 (9th Cir.

1997) (Procedurally defaulted claims may be reviewed on the merits to serve the

ends of justice); Jones v. Delo, 56 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 1995) (the answer to the

question that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror fairly considering

all the evidence, including the new evidence, would have found Petitioner guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt necessarily requires a review of the merits). 

4. Petitioner’s TRAVERSE, if any, is due THIRTY (30) days from the date

Respondent’s Answer is filed with the Court. 

5. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to SERVE a copy of this order on the

Attorney General or his representative. 

All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless

otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 78-230(h). All provisions of Local Rule 11-110 are

applicable to this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05773-LJO-TAG Document 40 Filed 08/18/05 Page 3 of 3