Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01558/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01558-8/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

 Respondent was directed to file a response so that a record could be made with regard 1

to such matters as jurisdiction, exhaustion of state court remedies, and application of the statute

of limitations. (Order filed Apr. 27, 2006, at 2.)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE DE JESUS RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1558 DFL DAD P

vs.

BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General

of the State of California,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus. By order filed April 27, 2006, the court directed respondent to file a response to

the petition. Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that this court lacks 1

jurisdiction, that the petition is successive, untimely, and unexhausted, and that, as to Ground

One, the petition fails to state a cognizable federal question.

Respondent’s motion includes a certificate of service reflecting that on July 26,

2006, the motion was served on petitioner by mail at his address of record. Petitioner was

required to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to respondent’s motion within thirty

Case 2:05-cv-01558-JKS-DAD Document 31 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 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

2

days, plus three for mailing, after July 26, 2006. See Order filed Apr. 27, 2006, at 3 (“If the

response to petitioner’s habeas petition is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or statement of nonopposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty days after the motion is served.”). 

The court previously denied petitioner’s premature motions for relief from untimeliness and

advised petitioner that, “[i]f respondent moves to dismiss the habeas petition on timeliness

grounds, petitioner should set forth his arguments concerning timeliness in opposition to the

motion.” Id. at 2.

In the interests of justice, the court will grant the pro se petitioner an extension of

time to file and serve his opposition or statement of non-opposition to respondent’s motion to

dismiss. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner shall file and serve his opposition or statement of non-opposition to

respondents’ July 26, 2006 motion to dismiss within thirty days after this order is served; and

2. Respondent’s reply shall be filed and served within fifteen days after petitioner

serves any opposition to the motion to dismiss. 

DATED: September 6, 2006.

DAD:13

rodr1558.opp

Case 2:05-cv-01558-JKS-DAD Document 31 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 2