Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00110/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00110-1/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

K:\Common\Lewis\Orders To Be Signed\12cv0110.BTM reopen consent 04.10.12.wpd, 41012 -1- 12cv0110

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL JESTER, Civil No. 12cv110 BTM (PCL)

Petitioner,

(1) ORDER REOPENING CASE;

(2) NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO

CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JURISDICTION (28 U.S.C. § 636(c),

F.R.C.P. 73), and

(2) ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE

TO PETITION (28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 4)

v.

VIMAL SINGH, Warden,

Respondents.

On January 12, 2012, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a prisoner trust account

statement, which the Court construed as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1,

2.) He filed a First Amended Petition on February 2, 2012. (ECF No. 4). On February 3, 2012,

the granted Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the petition without

prejudice and with leave to amend. Petitioner was given until March 27, 2012 to file a Second

Amended Petition that cured the pleading deficiencies outlined in the Court’s February 3, 2012

Order. (ECF No. 3.) On March 17, 2012, Petitioner constructively filed a Second Amended

Petition. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding that a notice of appeal by a

pro se prisoner is deemed filed at the moment the prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for

Case 3:12-cv-00110-BTM-PCL Document 8 Filed 04/10/12 Page 1 of 4
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

 If Respondents contend Petitioner has failed to exhaust any state remedies as to any ground for relief alleged in

the Petition, the motion to dismiss shall also specify the state remedies still available to Petitioner.

K:\Common\Lewis\Orders To Be Signed\12cv0110.BTM reopen consent 04.10.12.wpd, 41012 -2- 12cv0110

forwarding to the clerk of court); Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 575 (9th Cir. 2000)

(applying Houston to federal habeas petitions and state court habeas petitions that began the

period of tolling). Petitioner has also consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (See Pet. at

11.)

Accordingly, in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing petitions for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and upon a preliminary review of the Petition, IT

IS ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of this Court shall promptly (a) serve a copy of the Petition and a copy of

this Order on the Attorney General for the State of California, or his authorized agent; and

(b) serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner.

2. If Respondents contend the Petition can be decided without the Court’s reaching the

merits of Petitioner’s claims (e.g., because Respondents contend Petitioner has failed to exhaust

any state remedies as to any ground for relief alleged in the Petition, or that the Petition is barred

by the statute of limitations, or that the Petition is subject to dismissal under Rule 9 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases, or that all of the claims are procedurally defaulted, or that Petitioner

is not in custody), Respondents shall file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases no later than May 24, 2012. The motion to dismiss shall not address

the merits of Petitioner’s claims, but rather shall be confined to the basis for Respondents’

contention that dismissal without reaching the merits of Petitioner’s claims is warranted.1

 At the

time the motion to dismiss is filed, Respondents shall lodge with the Court all records bearing

on Respondents’ contention in this regard. A hearing date is not required for the motion to

dismiss.

3. If Respondents file a motion to dismiss, Petitioner shall file his opposition, if any, to

the motion no later than June 25, 2012. At the time the opposition is filed, Petitioner shall lodge

with the Court any records not lodged by Respondents which Petitioner believes may be relevant

to the Court’s determination of the motion.

Case 3:12-cv-00110-BTM-PCL Document 8 Filed 04/10/12 Page 2 of 4
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

K:\Common\Lewis\Orders To Be Signed\12cv0110.BTM reopen consent 04.10.12.wpd, 41012 -3- 12cv0110

4. Unless the Court orders otherwise, Respondents shall not file a reply to Petitioner’s

opposition to a motion to dismiss. If the motion is denied, the Court will afford Respondents

adequate time to respond to Petitioner’s claims on the merits.

5. If Respondents do not contend that the Petition can be decided without the Court

reaching the merits of Petitioner’s claims, Respondents shall file and serve an answer to the

Petition pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases no later than June 8, 2012. At

the time the answer is filed, Respondents shall lodge with the Court all records bearing on the

merits of Petitioner’s claims. The lodgments shall be accompanied by a notice of lodgment

which shall be captioned “Notice of Lodgment in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus Case —

To Be Sent to Clerk’s Office.” Respondent shall not combine separate pleadings, orders or

other items into a combined lodgment entry. Each item shall be numbered separately and

sequentially.

6. Petitioner may file a traverse to matters raised in the answer no later than July 9, 2012.

Any traverse by Petitioner (a) shall state whether Petitioner admits or denies each allegation of

fact contained in the answer; (b) shall be limited to facts or arguments responsive to matters

raised in the answer; and (c) shall not raise new grounds for relief that were not asserted in the

Petition. Grounds for relief withheld until the traverse will not be considered. No traverse shall

exceed ten (10) pages in length absent advance leave of Court for good cause shown.

7. A request by a party for an extension of time within which to file any of the pleadings

required by this Order should be made in advance of the due date of the pleading, and the Court

will grant such a request only upon a showing of good cause. Any such request shall be

accompanied by a declaration under penalty of perjury explaining why an extension of time is

necessary.

8. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, this case shall be deemed submitted on the day

following the date Petitioner’s opposition to a motion to dismiss and/or his traverse is due.

9. Every document delivered to the Court must include a certificate of service attesting

that a copy of such document was served on opposing counsel (or on the opposing party, if such

Case 3:12-cv-00110-BTM-PCL Document 8 Filed 04/10/12 Page 3 of 4
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

K:\Common\Lewis\Orders To Be Signed\12cv0110.BTM reopen consent 04.10.12.wpd, 41012 -4- 12cv0110

party is not represented by counsel). Any document delivered to the Court without a certificate

of service will be returned to the submitting party and will be disregarded by the Court.

10. Petitioner shall immediately notify the Court and counsel for Respondents of any

change of Petitioner’s address. If Petitioner fails to keep the Court informed of where Petitioner

may be contacted, this action will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute.

11. Petitioner has consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.

Respondent shall execute and return either a “Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United

States Magistrate Judge and Order of Reference” or a “Notice of Intent to Proceed before

District Judge” to the Clerk of Court on or before May 24, 2012. The parties are free to

withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences. The Clerk of Court shall send the

appropriate Southern District forms to Respondent along with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 10, 2012

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Copies to: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:12-cv-00110-BTM-PCL Document 8 Filed 04/10/12 Page 4 of 4