Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00276/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00276-8/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 

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

TENACE D. KNIGHT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ROBERT H. THIMBLE, Acting Warden, 

Respondents. 

Case No. 10-cv-00276-SBA (PR) 

Ninth Cir. Case Nos. 11-17350, 14-16262 

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Petitioner Tenace Knight, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state court conviction for attempted 

second degree robbery and numerous other criminal charges. Thereafter, Petitioner filed 

an amended petition, which is the operative petition. Dkt. 7. The Court, upon motion of 

Respondent, previously dismissed the action on the grounds that the amended petition was 

not filed within the one-year limitations period prescribed by the Antiterrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Dkt. 19. On June 16, 2014, the Court denied 

Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment of Dismissal Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(6). Dkt. 37. 

On November 5, 2015, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of 

the amended petition as untimely and the denial of Petitioner’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion. Dkt. 

46. On November 30, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate. Dkt. 48. 

The instant matter has since been remanded to this Court for a determination of the 

merits of the claims in the amended petition. As the Court has previously determined in its 

June 22, 2010 Order to Show Cause, it does not appear from the face of the amended 

petition that it is without merit. Good cause appearing, the Court hereby issues the 

following orders: 

1. Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, within sixty 

(60) days of the issuance of this Order, an Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of 

Case 4:10-cv-00276-SBA Document 49 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 2
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus 

should not be issued. Respondent shall file with the Answer a copy of all portions of the 

relevant state records that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a 

determination of the issues presented by the amended petition. 

2. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a 

Traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent within sixty (60) days of his receipt 

of the Answer. Should Petitioner fail to do so, the amended petition will be deemed 

submitted and ready for decision sixty (60) days after the date Petitioner is served with 

Respondent’s Answer. 

3. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court and Respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the 

Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Petitioner must also serve on Respondent’s counsel all 

communications with the Court by mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent’s 

counsel. Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se whose 

address changes while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of 

address specifying the new address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss a pro se 

action without prejudice when: (1) mail directed to the pro se party by the Court has been 

returned to the Court as not deliverable, and (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days 

of this return a written communication from the pro se party indicating a current address. 

See L.R. 3-11(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 

41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

4. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be 

granted. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than fourteen (14) 

days prior to the deadline sought to be extended. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 12/2/15 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

Senior United States District Judge 

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.10\Knight0276.2ndOSCafterMandate.docx 

Case 4:10-cv-00276-SBA Document 49 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 2