Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01282/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01282-1/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 

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 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 The petition was filed on July 29, 2013. (Doc. 1). After a preliminary review of the petition, 

the Court, on August 16, 2013, issued an Order to Show Cause why the petition should not be 

dismissed as untimely. (Doc. 9). That Order to Show Cause gave Petitioner thirty days within which 

to file a response. On September 11, 2013, Petitioner filed her response, contending actual innocence 

as an exception to the one-year limitation period and also contending that the evidence establishing her 

KHADIJAH GHAFUR, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

 Respondent. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)_

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01282-AWI-JLT 

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO FILE A 

RESPONSE 

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

SERVE DOCUMENTS ON ATTORNEY 

GENERAL 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO AMEND CAPTION (Doc. 12) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

SUBSTITUTE NAMES OF RESPONDENTS 

Case 1:13-cv-01282-AWI-JLT Document 14 Filed 09/12/13 Page 1 of 4
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

actual innocence was discovered at a point that would have made the petition timely under 28 U.S.C. § 

2244. (Doc. 13). Because Petitioner’s response makes reference to evidence not currently before the 

Court, the Court cannot make a final determination regarding timeliness until the state court record has 

been lodged with the Court for its review. Also, in the Order to Show Cause, the Court advised 

Petitioner that she must name the proper respondent. Accordingly, on September 11, 2013, Petitioner 

filed a motion to amend the petition to name the proper respondent. (Doc. 12). 

After reviewing Petitioner’s response and motion to amend, and after conducting further 

review of the original petition, the Court concludes that it cannot, at this juncture, make a 

determination regarding timeliness based on the present record. Moreover, it is not clear from the face 

of the Petition whether Petitioner is entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Accordingly, pursuant to 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure,1

 the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Respondent SHALL FILE a RESPONSE to the Petition12 within SIXTY (60) days of 

the date of service of this order. See 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 a response). A Response can be made by filing one of the following: 

A. AN ANSWER addressing the merits of the Petition. Respondent SHALL 

INCLUDE with the Answer any and all transcripts or other documents necessary 

for the resolution of the issues presented in the Petition. See Rule 5, Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases. Any argument by Respondent that Petitioner has 

procedurally defaulted a claim SHALL BE MADE in the ANSWER, but must also 

address the merits of the claim asserted. 

B. A MOTION TO DISMISS the Petition. A Motion to Dismiss SHALL INCLUDE 

 

1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “apply to proceedings for habeas corpus ... to the extent that the practice in those 

proceedings (A) is not specified in a federal statute, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, or the Rules Governing 

Section 2255 Cases; and (B) has previously conformed to the practice in civil actions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(4). Rule 12 

also provides “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory

provisions or these rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules.” Rule 12, Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases. 

2

Respondent is advised that a scanned copy of the Petition is available in the Court’s electronic case filing system 

(“CM/ECF”). 

Case 1:13-cv-01282-AWI-JLT Document 14 Filed 09/12/13 Page 2 of 4
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

copies of all Petitioner’s state court filings and dispositive rulings. See Rule 5, 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.3

2. If Respondent files an Answer to the Petition, Petitioner MAY FILE a Traverse within 

THIRTY (30) days of the date Respondent’s Answer is filed with the Court. If no 

Traverse is filed, the Petition and Answer are deemed submitted at the expiration of the 

thirty days. 

3. If Respondent files a Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner SHALL FILE an Opposition or 

Statement of Non-Opposition within TWENTY-ONE (21) days of the date 

Respondent’s Motion is filed with the Court. If no Opposition is filed, the Motion to 

Dismiss is deemed submitted at the expiration of the thirty days. Any Reply to an 

Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss SHALL be filed within SEVEN (7) days after the 

Opposition is served. 

4. Unless already submitted, both Respondent and Petitioner SHALL COMPLETE and 

RETURN to the Court within THIRTY (30) days a Consent/Decline form indicating 

whether the party consents or declines to consent to the jurisdiction of the United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). 

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

General or his or her representative. 

6. Petitioner’s motion to amend the caption (Doc. 12), is GRANTED. The Clerk of the 

Court is DIRECTED to substitute as proper respondents “Larry Perkins, probation 

officer,” and “Rick Chavez, Fresno County Probation Office,” and to delete as 

respondent “The People of the State of California.” 

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

otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 230(l). Extensions of time will only be granted upon a 

 

3

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that upon the Court’s determination that summary dismissal 

is inappropriate, the “judge must order the respondent to file an answer or other pleading...or to take other action the judge 

may order.” Rule 4, Rules Governing 2254 Cases (emphasis added); see also Advisory Committee Notes to Rules 4 and 5 

of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (stating that a dismissal may obviate the need for filing an answer on the 

substantive merits of the petition and that the Attorney General may file a Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust); White 

v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602-603 (9th Cir. 1989)(providing that Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 4 are proper in a 

federal habeas proceeding). 

Case 1:13-cv-01282-AWI-JLT Document 14 Filed 09/12/13 Page 3 of 4
4 

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

showing of good cause. All provisions of Local Rule 110 are applicable to this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 12, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:13-cv-01282-AWI-JLT Document 14 Filed 09/12/13 Page 4 of 4