Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01448/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01448-3/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCOIS P. GIVENS,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW MARTEL, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-1448 MHP (pr)

ORDER LIFTING STAY,

REOPENING ACTION, AND

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254 to challenge his 2002 San Francisco County Superior Court conviction. At petitioner's

request, this action was stayed so that he could exhaust state court remedies as to several

unexhausted claims. Petitioner now reports that he has completed his efforts to exhaust state

court remedies, and moves to reopen the action and to file a first amended habeas petition. 

Upon due consideration, the court GRANTS the motion to reopen the action. (Docket

# 67.) The stay is lifted. The clerk will REOPEN this action that had been closed

administratively. 

The first amended petition (docket # 69) lists twenty-four claims, all of which assert

violations of Givens' federal constitutional rights. Givens re-arranges his claims and alleges

them differently in his first amended petition than in his original petition. Re-drafting a

petition sometimes introduces new procedural problems that did not exist in the earlier

version of the petition. It appears that the best course is to permit the first amended petition

so that it is the operative pleading, and to permit respondent to raise any procedural challenge

to the first amended petition by way of a renewed motion to dismiss it. (Of course, if

Case 3:07-cv-01448-EMC Document 72 Filed 02/11/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

respondent has no procedural challenge, he may answer the first amended petition rather than

move to dismiss it.) Accordingly, the motion to amend the petition is GRANTED. (Docket

# 68.) The operative pleading is now the First Amended Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus

(docket # 69).

In order to expedite resolution of this action, the court now sets the following briefing

schedule: 

1. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before April 16, 2010, a

motion to dismiss or an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. 

Respondent must file with the answer a copy of all portions of the state court record that have

been previously transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented

by the first amended petition.

2. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before May 21, 2010. If respondent files a

motion to dismiss, petitioner must file his opposition by this same deadline.

3. If respondent files a motion to dismiss, he must file and serve his reply brief no

later than June 4, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 10, 2010 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01448-EMC Document 72 Filed 02/11/10 Page 2 of 2