Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02055/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02055-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH ARCH SHERMAN, No. CIV S-07-2055-WBS-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

YOLO COUNTY CHIEF

PROBATION OFFICER, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for a writ

of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), filed on October 1, 2007.

The court has examined the petition as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. It does not plainly appear from the petition and any attached

exhibits that petitioner is not entitled to relief. See id. Respondents, therefore, will be directed to

file a response to petitioner’s petition. See id. If respondents answer the petition, such answer

must comply with Rule 5 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Specifically, an

answer shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the

Case 2:07-cv-02055-WBS-CMK Document 14 Filed 05/28/08 Page 1 of 3
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 The findings and recommendations were adopted on February 28, 2008. 1

2

determination of the issue(s) presented in the petition. See id. 

On November 5, 2007, the court directed the Clerk of the Court to forward a copy

of the petition to Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General for the State of

California. The court further directed that he file a response on behalf of respondents. On that

same day, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Brian G. Smiley filed a response requesting

dismissal of the Attorney General of the State of California as a respondent to this action and

advising that the appropriate agency to file a response on behalf of respondent Yolo County

Chief Probation Officer is the Yolo County Counsel’s Office. On December 19, 2007, the court

issued an order directing the Yolo County Counsel’s Office to respond to the petition on behalf

of respondent Yolo County Chief Probation Officer within 30 days. The court also issued

findings and recommendations that the Attorney General of the State of California be dismissed

as a respondent to this action. 

1

To date, respondent Yolo County Chief Probation Officer has not filed a response

to the petition. Respondent is hereby directed to show cause why monetary sanctions should not

be imposed on respondent and/or the Yolo County Counsel’s Office for violation of the court’s

December 19, 2007, order. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 11-110. Respondent Yolo County Chief

Probation Officer is advised that the filing of a response to the petition within the time provided

by this order will constitute an adequate response to the order to show cause. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent Yolo County Chief Probation Officer is directed to show

cause in writing, within 20 days of the date of this order, why monetary sanctions should not be

imposed; and

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-02055-WBS-CMK Document 14 Filed 05/28/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on Ms. Robyn

Drivon and Mr. Daniel Cederborg, Office of the Yolo County Counsel, 625 Court Street, Room

201, Woodland, California, 95695.

DATED: May 27, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-02055-WBS-CMK Document 14 Filed 05/28/08 Page 3 of 3