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

 See Rodriguez v. County of San Joaquin, case No. MC S-02-0095 DFL PAN PS 1

(dismissed on April 10, 2002, with leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus); Rodriguez

v. San Joaquin Superior Court, et al., case No. MC S-02-0245 DFL DAD PS (dismissed on

January 9, 2003, with instructions to the Clerk of the Court to open a habeas action); Rodriguez

v. San Joaquin Superior Court, et al., case No. CIV S-03-0029 DFL DAD P (opened pursuant to

the order filed in case No. MC S-02-0245 and dismissed on May 23, 2003, due to petitioner’s

failure to file an amended petition); Rodriguez v. San Joaquin Superior Court, et al., case No.

CIV S-03-2685 DFL DAD P (dismissed on September 28, 2004, due to petitioner’s failure to

exhaust state remedies); and Rodriguez v. Bill Lockyer, case No. CIV S-05-1489 DFL DAD P

(dismissed on April 24, 2006, as duplicative of case No. CIV S-05-1558).

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. Petitioner has paid the required filing fee.

This case is one of six in which petitioner has sought relief concerning his 1996

San Joaquin County conviction. Pursuant to the court’s order filed on April 24, 2006, in this

1

case and in case No. CIV S-05-1489, petitioner’s duplicative case has been dismissed.

Case 2:05-cv-01558-JKS-DAD Document 10 Filed 04/27/06 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

2

The duplicative petition in case No. CIV S-05-1489 was properly dismissed on

August 24, 2005, with leave to amend. The court’s August 24, 2005 order raised jurisdictional

concerns and directed petitioner to clarify his custody status in the amended petition. Petitioner

was also ordered to state the factual and legal basis for each of his claims, as required by Rule 4

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. Petitioner did not

file an amended petition. By order filed on February 3, 2006, in case No. CIV S-05-1489,

petitioner was given one final opportunity to file an amended petition. Petitioner did not comply

with the order.

Due to the defects of petitioner’s pleading, the court is unable to determine

whether petitioner may be entitled to any relief in this court. It appears from the pro se

petitioner’s filings in case No. CIV S-05-1489 and in this action that he is either unable or

unwilling to amend his petition to allege facts establishing jurisdiction or to articulate a legal and

factual basis for each of his grounds for relief. The court will direct the respondent to file a

response to petitioner’s habeas petition so that a record can be made with regard to such matters

as jurisdiction, exhaustion of state court remedies, and application of the statute of limitations.

In a letter that accompanied petitioner’s June 28, 2005 filings, petitioner refers to

“two motions addressing the untimeliness issue.” Petitioner’s motions will be denied without

prejudice. If respondent moves to dismiss the habeas petition on timeliness grounds, petitioner

should set forth his arguments concerning timeliness in opposition to the motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motions filed June 28, 2005 (docketed as documents #2 and #3)

are denied;

2. Respondent is directed to file a response to petitioner’s habeas petition within

thirty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer

shall be accompanied by all transcripts and other documents relevant to the issues presented in

the petition. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases;

Case 2:05-cv-01558-JKS-DAD Document 10 Filed 04/27/06 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

3. If the response to petitioner’s habeas petition is an answer, petitioner’s reply to

the answer shall be filed and served within thirty days after the answer is served;

4. If the response to petitioner’s habeas petition is a motion, petitioner’s

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty

days after the motion is served, and respondent’s reply to petitioner’s opposition shall be filed

and served within fifteen days after the opposition is served; and

5. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner’s June 28, 2005 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(docketed as document #1) upon Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

DATED: April 26, 2006.

DAD:13

rodr1558.100fee

Case 2:05-cv-01558-JKS-DAD Document 10 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 3