Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03753/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03753-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

JUAN FELIPE MELENDEZ,

Plaintiff.

v.

ERIC ARNOLD,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03753-KAW 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER 

CONTINUING HEARING ON 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY TO 

DECEMBER 3, 2015

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1 & 4

Petitioner Juan Felipe Melendez, a state prisoner incarcerated at Solano State Prison, filed 

a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he challenges his 

state criminal conviction. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United 

States Magistrate Judge over this action. 

It does not appear from the face of the petition that it is without merit, as one or more 

claims are exhausted. Good cause appearing, the Court hereby issues the following orders:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order and the petition and all 

attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the 

State of California.

2. No later than sixty days from the date of this Order, Respondent shall file with this 

Court and serve upon Petitioner 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 shall file with the Answer all portions of the state record that have been transcribed 

previously and 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 thirty days of his receipt of the Answer. If he does not do so, the petition 

Case 3:15-cv-03753-EMC Document 7 Filed 09/18/15 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

will be deemed submitted and ready for decision on the date the Traverse is due.

3. No later than sixty days from the date of this Order, Respondent may file with this Court 

and serve upon Petitioner a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an Answer, 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 to the motion within thirty days of receipt of the 

motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen 

days of receipt of an opposition.

4. Respondent shall file his Consent or Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction within 

twenty-eight days from the date of this Order. The Clerk shall mail to Respondent the necessary 

form to indicate his consent or declination. This form can also be found at 

www.cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. 

5. Generally, extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be 

granted. In light of the pending state court action seeking informal briefing regarding Claim #1, 

the Court continues the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to stay (Dkt. No. 4) to December 3, 2015.

Any motion or stipulation for an extension of time must be filed no later than ten days prior to the 

deadline sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2015

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03753-EMC Document 7 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 2