Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05425/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05425-0/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

1 Because the discipline petitioner received resulted in a loss of good time credits, and

thus prolonged the duration of his custody, the claims were properly brought in a habeas

petition. See generally Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 876-78 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding

challenges to prison practices that result in loss of good time credits may be brought in habeas

petition).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO LEE TAYLOR,

Petitioner,

v.

MR. ALAMEDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-5425 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS; ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

(Docket No. 18)

Alonzo Lee Taylor (“petitioner”), a California prisoner, filed the above-titled pro se

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This Court initially

dismissed the action without prejudice to petitioner’s filing his claims in a civil rights

complaint. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the

dismissal and remanded, on the grounds the petition not only challenged the

constitutionality of efforts by prison officials to collect DNA samples from petitioner, but

also the discipline petitioner received for refusing to cooperate in that collection.1

Thereafter, this Court directed respondent to show cause why the petition should not be

granted. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition, petitioner has filed an

opposition, and respondent has filed a reply. 

Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it is moot. In support

Case 3:02-cv-05425-MMC Document 26 Filed 08/09/05 Page 1 of 3
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

thereof, respondent has submitted evidence that petitioner, approximately one month after

the filing of the instant petition, provided blood and saliva samples for DNA analysis. (See

Respt.’s Ex. B). As a result, respondent argues, “the Court is no longer able to grant the

temporary restraining order, the only relief requested.” Respondent’s reading of the

petition is too narrow. As explained above, the Ninth Circuit found the petition challenges

not only the then-impending collection of DNA samples, but also the discipline petitioner

received for refusing to cooperate in that collection. Consequently, were the petition

granted, the relief to which petitioner would be entitled would include expungement of the

discipline and restoration of the lost time credits. Respondent provides no indication that

the discipline has been expunged, or that petitioner’s lost time credits have been restored. 

Accordingly, the petition is not moot, and respondent’s motion to dismiss must be denied. 

In his opposition, petitioner raises for the first time claims that the denial of his

parole in 2004 was improper, and that he provided the DNA samples involuntarily. 

Petitioner may not proceed with these claims for two reasons. First, in order for the state

to be properly advised of new claims, they should be presented in an amended petition, not

in a traverse or opposition to a motion. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507

(9th Cir. 1994). Secondly, even if presented in an amended petition, the claims could not

be heard in this court because they have not been exhausted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c)

(requiring petitioner to fairly present all claims to the highest state court prior to raising

them in federal petition). Accordingly, the instant action will proceed solely on the basis of

the four claims raised in the original petition.

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. 

 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of

the date this order is filed, 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

granted based on the four cognizable claims in the petition. Respondent shall file with the

answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have

Case 3:02-cv-05425-MMC Document 26 Filed 08/09/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

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

by the petition. 

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 30 days of his receipt of the answer.

3. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within 60 days of the date this order

is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory Committee

Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a

motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or

statement of non-opposition within 30 days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall

file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of receipt of any

opposition.

This order terminates Docket No. 18.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 9, 2005

____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:02-cv-05425-MMC Document 26 Filed 08/09/05 Page 3 of 3