Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00975/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00975-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN T. ROGERS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-01-0975 FCD GGH P

vs.

CLAUDE FINN, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On April 29, 2004, the court dismissed the petition on grounds that the claims

were procedurally defaulted. On December 16, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

reversed and remanded this matter. 

Having apparently determined that respondent did not meet its burden of proving

the adequacy of California’s untimeliness rule (an issue that was never reached in this court

because petitioner had not met his burden) the Ninth Circuit nevertheless remanded this case for

the court to make this determination. The undersigned is puzzled by this seemingly conflicted

holding and remand. Nevertheless, respondent can attempt for the first time in this court to

establish the adequacy of the bar if respondent thinks he can do so.

/////

/////

Case 2:01-cv-00975-FCD-GGH Document 50 Filed 01/10/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of this

order, respondent may file a motion addressing the adequacy of California’s untimeliness rule;

petitioner’s opposition is due thirty days thereafter.

DATED: 1/10/06 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

ro975.ord

Case 2:01-cv-00975-FCD-GGH Document 50 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 2