Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00017/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00017-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN TROY STURGES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

MATTHEW KRAMER, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

CV F 05 0017 LJO HC 

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO FILE

RESPONSE

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. The parties having voluntarily consented to exercise of Magistrate

Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), by order dated November 29, 2005, this case

was assigned to the undersigned for all purposes, including entry of final judgment.

On December 14, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. By order of the

Court dated January 5, 2005, the action was transferred to the Fresno Division and received in this

Court. Following a preliminary review of the petition, on February 4, 2005, the Court issued an order

Case 1:05-cv-00017-GSA Document 20 Filed 01/26/06 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

1The 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. 

directing Respondent to file a response to the petition. On August 9, 2005, the briefing schedule in

this matter was reset.

On October 11, 2005, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust

state remedies. On December 2, 2005, the undersigned granted Respondent’s motion and gave

Petitioner leave to file a motion to withdraw the unexhausted claims in lieu of suffering dismissal.

On January 12, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw the unexhausted claims. Concurrent with

this order, the Court will grant Petitioner’s motion. 

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 AN ANSWER addressing the merits of the Petition, due

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.).

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

documents necessary for the resolution of the issues presented in the Petition.

Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

S 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

Case 1:05-cv-00017-GSA Document 20 Filed 01/26/06 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

2Respondent is advised that a scanned copy of the Petition is available in the Court’s electronic case management

system (“CM/ECF”).

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

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

Respondent’s Answer is filed with the Court.

2. Oppositions to motions SHALL be served and filed within EIGHT (8) days, plus three

days for mailing. REPLIES to Oppositions SHALL be served and filed within eight (8)

days, plus three days for mailing. If no opposition is filed, all motions are deemed

submitted at the expiration of the opposition period. 

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to SERVE a copy of this order2 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: January 25, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00017-GSA Document 20 Filed 01/26/06 Page 3 of 3