Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06136/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06136-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO DULANEY,

Petitioner,

v.

R. L. CANDELARIA, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 03-6136 AWI SMS HC

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT ANSWER ADDRESSING MERITS

OF PETITION

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 21, 2003. By

order of December 18, 2003, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the petition. 

Respondent filed its answer on April 19, 2004. Petitioner did not file a traverse.

In its answer, Respondent argues that the claims raised in the instant petition are

procedurally defaulted. Respondent did not, however, address the merits of the petition. The

Court’s order of December 18, 2003, instructed that “[a]ny 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 (9th Cir. 1995) (the answer to the question that it is more

Case 1:03-cv-06136-SMS Document 16 Filed 06/01/05 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

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).” (Court Doc. 6.) 

Accordingly, within sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order, Respondent

shall submit an answer addressing the merits of the petition. Within thirty (30) days thereafter,

Petitioner may submit a traverse. All other provisions of the Court’s December 18, 2003, order

remain in full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06136-SMS Document 16 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 2