Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00683/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00683-2/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 -1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY LOUA THOR,

Petitioner, No. CIV 07-0683 ALA HC

vs.

D.K. SISTO, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

____________________________/

Ricky Loua Thor has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 1, 2007 the Court issued an order, pursuant to Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, directing Respondent to file either an answer to Mr.

Cowan’s petition or a motion to dismiss the petition. See Docket No. 3. In response to that

order, Respondent filed a document on July 31, 2007, entitled “Answer to Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus.” Although titled as an “Answer,” the document requests that Mr. Thor’s

petition be denied on the merits. See Docket No. 6 at 11 (“Thus, Thor’s claim fails here, as it did

in the state courts, and his Petition should be denied.”). It also contains a section entitled

“Memorandum of Points and Authorities . . .” in which Respondent sets forth substantive

Case 2:07-cv-00683-WBS -EFB Document 10 Filed 08/29/07 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

27

28 -2-

arguments on the merits of petitioner’s claims. Petitioner, apparently believing that the

document was an answer, filed a traverse on August 9, 2007. 

The document Respondent filed on July 31, 2007, appears to be neither an answer nor a

motion to dismiss. An answer is not a proper vehicle by which to seek dismissal. Respondent

should instead have requested dismissal by filing a motion to dismiss, which is a proper motion

in a § 2254 proceeding. White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989).

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent shall file a properly-titled motion to dismiss, setting forth supporting

authority, if any, for the arguments contained in Respondent’s “Answer to Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus,” on or before Friday, September 28, 2007. 

2. Petitioner shall file a response to Respondent’s motion to dismiss on or before

Monday, October 15, 2007.

3. Respondent shall file a reply in support of its motion to dismiss on or before Monday,

October 22, 2007.

DATED: August 28, 2007

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:07-cv-00683-WBS -EFB Document 10 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 2