Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01546/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01546-7/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY LAWS,

 Petitioner,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,

 Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01546-BAM HC

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT

TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED 

PETITION (Doc. 42)

ORDER SETTING REVISED SCHEDULE

FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 24, 2015, the Court denied Petitioner's 

motion to amend the petition to the extent that it proposed to add unexhausted claims. The Court 

granted Petitioner the option of withdrawing the unexhausted claims and amending his petition to 

include proposed claim three, to be worded exactly as the claim was worded in the petition 

presented to the California Supreme Court. On September 2, 2015, Petitioner moved to withdraw 

proposed ground two, which was unexhausted, and to amend the petition to include the proposed 

claim three, to be worded exactly as the claim was worded in the petition presented to the 

California Supreme Court. The Court granted the motion and directed Petitioner to file "a single 

amended petition incorporating all additions and omitting all deletions to the original petition that 

the Court has previously approved." Doc. 41. 

On September 24, 2015, Petitioner filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus

which was intended to add claim three, to be worded exactly as the claim was worded in the 

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 43 Filed 10/14/15 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

27

28

2

petition presented to the California Supreme Court. The Court has conducted a preliminary review 

of the amended petition. Whether Petitioner is entitled to relief from the remaining claim is not 

clear from the face of the amended petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2243. In fact, it is not clear to the Court 

that Petitioner has added claim three.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and F.R.Civ.P. 

16, 1the Court hereby ORDERS:

1. Within sixty (60) days of the date of service of this order, Respondent shall file a 

supplemental response to the amended petition2addressing claim three. See Rule 4, Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases; Cluchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1473-74 (9th Cir. 1985) (court 

has discretion to fix time for filing a response). A supplemental response can be made by filing one 

of the following:

a. A supplemental answer addressing the merits of claim three. Respondent 

shall include with the supplemental answer any and all transcripts or other documents 

necessary for resolution of the issues presented in claim three. See Rule 5, Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. Any argument by Respondent that Petitioner has procedurally 

defaulted claim three may be made in the supplemental answer, but it must also address 

claim three's merits.

b. A motion to dismiss claim three. A motion to dismiss shall include copies 

of all of state court findings and dispositive rulings relevant to claim three. See Rule 5, 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.3

 

1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "apply to proceedings for habeas corpus . . . to the extent that the practice in those 

proceedings (A) is not specified in a federal statute, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, or the Rules Governing 

Section 2255 Cases; and (B) has previously conformed to the practice in civil actions." F.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(4). Rule 12 also 

provides that "[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory 

provisions of these rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules." Rule 12, Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases.

2 A scanned copy of the amended petition is available in the Court's electronic case filing system (CM/ECF).

3 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that upon the Court's determination that summary dismissal 

is inappropriate, the "judge must order the respondent to file and answer or other pleading . . . or to take other action the 

judge may order." Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (emphasis added); see also Advisory Committee Notes 

to Rules 4 and 5 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (stating that a dismissal may obviate the need for filing an 

answer on the substantive merits of the petition and that the Attorney General may file a motion to dismiss for failure to 

exhaust); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989) (providing that motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4 are 

proper in a federal habeas proceeding).

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 43 Filed 10/14/15 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

27

28

3

2. If Respondent files a supplemental answer addressing claim three, Petitioner may 

file a supplemental traverse addressing claim three within thirty (30) days of the date Respondent's 

supplemental answer is filed with the Court. If no supplemental traverse is filed, the amended

petition and supplemental answer are deemed submitted at the end of thirty (30) days.

3. If a Respondent files a motion to dismiss claim three, Petitioner shall file an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-one (21) days of the date that 

Respondent's motion is filed with the Court. If no opposition is filed, the motion to dismiss is 

deemed submitted at the expiration of thirty (30) days. Any reply to any opposition to the motion 

to dismiss claim three shall be filed within seven (7) days after the opposition is served.

All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless 

otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 230(l). Extensions of time will only be granted upon a 

showing of good cause. All provisions of Local Rule 110 are applicable to this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 43 Filed 10/14/15 Page 3 of 3