Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01313/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01313-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS LEE DAWKINS,

Petitioner,

v.

JOE McGRATH, Warden, 

Respondent. _______________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1313 SBA (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

Petitioner Douglas Lee Dawkins, a state prisoner, filed this habeas corpus petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (hereinafter "IFP"). 

Venue is proper because Petitioner is challenging prison discipline imposed by Pelican

Bay State Prison (PBSP), which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

According to the allegations in the petition, Petitioner was issued a Rules Violation

Report (RVR) on April 1, 1993. He was charged with "assault on a prisoner with a weapon." A

disciplinary hearing was held regarding this RVR and Petitioner was found guilty. Petitioner

alleges several procedural due process violations with respect to this disciplinary proceeding.

DISCUSSION

A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation

of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see Rose v.

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). The court shall issue an order directing the respondent to show

cause why the writ should not be granted unless it plainly appears from the petition that the petitioner

is not entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases

Under Section 2254. 

Petitioner's procedural due process challenges to his disciplinary proceeding are properly

brought in a habeas petition because success in this action would shorten the length of his

Case 4:05-cv-01313-SBA Document 13 Filed 01/16/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

confinement. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998) (holding that any claim by a

prisoner attacking the validity or duration of his confinement must be brought under the habeas

sections of Title 28 of the United States Code). Petitioner presented his claims to this Court in a

timely manner, he alleges that he fulfilled his duty to exhaust his state judicial remedies, and he

asserts claims that are cognizable on federal habeas review. Therefore, Respondent is directed to

SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be granted.

CONCLUSION

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED (docket no. 4).

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this Order and the

petition and all attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney

General of the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this Order on the Petitioner

at his most current address. 

3. Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, no later than thirty

(30) days of the issuance of this Order, an Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued.

Respondent shall file with the Answer a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been

transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse with the

Court and serving it on Respondent no later than forty-five (45) days of his receipt of the Answer.

Should Petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision fortyfive (45) days after the date Petitioner is served with Respondent's Answer. 

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an Answer,

as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion no later than forty-five (45) days of receipt

of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner a reply no later than

fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

5. It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the court

Case 4:05-cv-01313-SBA Document 13 Filed 01/16/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.05\Dawkins1313.OSC.frm 3

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk of the Court headed

"NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS," and comply with any orders of the Court within the time

allowed or ask for an extension of that time. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

6. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court, whether by way of

formal legal motions or informal letters, must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of the

document to Respondent's counsel. 

7. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. 

However, the party making a motion for an extension of time is not relieved from his or her duty

to comply with the deadlines set by the Court merely by having made a motion for an extension

of time. The party making the motion must still meet the deadlines set by the Court until an

order addressing the motion for an extension of time is issued. Any motion for an extension of

time must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the deadline sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 1/15/08 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01313-SBA Document 13 Filed 01/16/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.05\Dawkins1313.OSC.frm 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAWKINS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MCGRATH et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-01313 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 16, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Douglas Lee Dawkins

16837 Liberty Street

San Leandro, CA 94578

Dated: January 16, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:05-cv-01313-SBA Document 13 Filed 01/16/08 Page 4 of 4