Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01355/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01355-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSHAY L. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES YATES, Warden

Respondent.

 /

1:09-cv-01355-OWW-SMS (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE

RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION

TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Doc. 18]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 9, 2009, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the instant petition as

duplicative, untimely, and for failure to state a cognizable claim. (Court Doc. 15.) On December

17, 2009, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendation to grant Respondent’s motion to

dismiss. (Court Doc. 19.) However, on the same date, Petitioner filed an opposition to

Respondent’s motion, with a proof of service date of December 6, 2009-which is timely under

the mailbox rule. (Court Doc. 18.) 

1

The Court finds it necessary for Respondent to submit a response to Petitioner’s claim

that his sentence was modified by way of an amended abstract of judgment on August 16, 2007. 

See Rule 3(d) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266

1

(1988) (deeming a prose prisoner’s notice of appeal filed at the moment it was delivered to prison authorities for

forwarding to the clerk of court). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Saffold v. Newland, 250 F.3d 1282,

1288-89 (9 Cir. 2000 amended May 23, 2001) that the “mailbox” rule as provided for in Houston also applies to

th

state and federal petitions with respect to calculating the statute of limitations under the AEDPA.

1

Case 1:09-cv-01355-OWW -SMS Document 22 Filed 03/03/10 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

(Exhibit A, to Opposition.) Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty (20) days

from the date of service of this order, Respondent shall file a response to Petitioner’s opposition

to the motion to dismiss. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01355-OWW -SMS Document 22 Filed 03/03/10 Page 2 of 2