Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05277/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05277-2/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

Order Re-Opening Case; Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.14\Clark277reoosc.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN R. CLARK, 

Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC ARNOLD, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 14-5277 RMW (PR)

ORDER RE-OPENING CASE;

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On December 2, 2014, petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a writ of

habeas corpus challenging a criminal conviction and judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On

February 10, 2015, the court dismissed this action for failure to timely file a completed

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. On February 11, 2015, petitioner

filed a $5.00 filing fee. Accordingly, the court sua sponte re-opens this action and orders

respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

(),/('

Case 5:14-cv-05277-RMW Document 12 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Order Re-Opening Case; Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.14\Clark277reoosc.wpd 2

A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the

applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Petitioner’s Claim

As grounds for federal habeas relief petitioner raises the following claim: because

petitioner was sentenced to an Indeterminate Sentencing Law term, petitioner’s sentence violates

ex post facto. Liberally construed, petitioner’s allegation is sufficient to require a response. The

court orders respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

CONCLUSION 

1. The clerk shall RE-OPEN the case.

2. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition (docket 

no. 1) and all attachments thereto upon the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the

Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the

petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety 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. 

Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the

underlying state criminal record that have 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 thirty days of the date the answer is filed.

4. Respondent may file 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 within ninety days of the date this order is filed. If respondent files such a motion,

petitioner shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of nonopposition within thirty days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the

court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen days of the date any opposition is filed.

Case 5:14-cv-05277-RMW Document 12 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Order Re-Opening Case; Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.14\Clark277reoosc.wpd 3

5. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded that

all communications with the court must be served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the

document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the court and all parties informed of any

change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He must

comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal

of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-05277-RMW Document 12 Filed 06/02/15 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN RANDALL CLARK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ERIC ARNOLD et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV14-05277 RMW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 2, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Steven R. Clark E16968

CSP Solano, A6-113-Low

P.O. box 4000

Vacaville, CA 95696-4000

Dated: June 2, 2015

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jackie Lynn Garcia, Deputy Clerk

Case 5:14-cv-05277-RMW Document 12 Filed 06/02/15 Page 4 of 4