Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00700/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00700-0/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)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EUGENE RICE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CYNTHIA Y. TAMPKINS, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-00700-GGH 

ORDER 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed two motions on July 20, 2015, which the court will 

deny. Nevertheless, in light of petitioner’s motions the court will grant him a 30-day extension 

sua sponte to file an opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss. 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on June 22, 2015, arguing that petitioner 

failed to exhaust his state remedies with respect to claims one through three and five through 

seven, and that claims one through three, five, and six fail to present a federal question. ECF No. 

9. Because petitions containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims (also known as “mixed 

petitions”) are generally barred, respondent requests that the court dismiss the petition in its 

entirety. See Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2008). In accordance with the 

court’s April 23, 2015 order petitioner had thirty (30) days to file an opposition to respondent’s 

Case 2:15-cv-00700-GGH Document 13 Filed 07/29/15 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

motion. See ECF No. 5. On July 20, 2015, petitioner filed a self-styled “motion for enlargement 

of time” and a “motion to dismiss unexhausted claims.” ECF Nos. 11, 12. Petitioner’s motion 

for enlargement of time requests additional time “to correct any errors” in his petition if the court 

finds that any errors exist. ECF No. 11. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss unexhausted claims states, 

in full, “I Petitioner Eugene Rice respectfully request that all unexhausted claims be dismissed 

and that review of the instant case proceed.” ECF No. 12. 

Petitioner does not seem to understand that if he does not oppose respondent’s motion to 

dismiss at least in part, respondent’s motion will be granted and his petition will be dismissed. 

Neither of petitioner’s motions can fairly be construed as an opposition. What’s more, petitioner 

cannot, in leiu of an opposition, file a request that the court engage in a sua sponte review of 

respondent’s motion to dismiss and grant or deny it at its discretion. Such a motion amounts to, if 

anything, a notice of non-opposition to respondent’s motion. 

Petitioner’s opposition was due by July 22, 2015. Accordingly, petitioner has failed to file 

a timely opposition. Nevertheless, in light of petitioner’s pro se status and his motion seeking an 

extension of time to correct his petition’s deficiencies, the court will grant him a 30-day extension 

sua sponte. Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Petitioners July 20, 2015 motions, ECF Nos. 11, 12, are DENIED; and 

2. Petitioner must file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to respondent’s motion 

to dismiss by August 21, 2015. Respondent’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served 

within fourteen (14) days thereafter. 

Dated: July 28, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00700-GGH Document 13 Filed 07/29/15 Page 2 of 2