Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02429/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02429-0/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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE PHILLIPPI,

Petitioner,

v.

CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden,

1

Respondent.

Case No. 23-cv-04403-YGR (PR)

ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS AND DIRECTING 

RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT 

BE GRANTED

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a January 19, 2022 disciplinary hearing at Pelican Bay State 

Prison. Dkt. 1. Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2.

It does not appear from the face of the petition that it is without merit. Good cause 

appearing, the Court hereby issues the following orders:

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. 2.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon respondent and 

respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email 

address: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov. The petition and the exhibits thereto are available via 

the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of California. The Clerk shall serve a 

copy of this Order on petitioner.

3. Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon petitioner, within sixty (60) 

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 relevant state records that have 

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

petition.

1 Christian Pfeiffer, the current warden of the prison where petitioner is incarcerated, has 

been substituted as respondent pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:24-cv-02429-TLN-SCR Document 8 Filed 11/08/23 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse

with the Court and serving it on respondent within sixty (60) days of his receipt of the Answer. 

Should petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision sixty 

(60) days after the date petitioner is served with respondent’s Answer.

5. Respondent may file with this Court and serve upon petitioner, within sixty (60)

days of the issuance of this Order, 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 within sixty (60) days of 

receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply 

within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition.

6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders 

in a timely fashion. Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se

whose address changes while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of 

address specifying the new address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss a pro se action 

without prejudice when: (1) mail directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the 

Court as not deliverable, and (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written 

communication from the pro se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b); see also 

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

Petitioner must also serve on respondent’s counsel all communications with the Court by mailing 

a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel.

7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

8. This Order terminates Docket No. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _____________________________________

JUDGE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

November 8, 2023

Case 2:24-cv-02429-TLN-SCR Document 8 Filed 11/08/23 Page 2 of 2