Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00627/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00627-13/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BENITO JULIAN LUNA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SCOTT KERNAN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:04-cv-0627 MCE GGH P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner represented by counsel, proceeding with an application for a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals vacated the district court’s judgment dismissing the petition as untimely, and 

remanded “for the district court to determine in the first instance, after conducting an evidentiary 

hearing if necessary, whether Luna diligently pursued his rights through the date of filing, June 3, 

2011.” The court stated that the district court’s determination would control whether the petition 

should be deemed timely. (ECF No. 61.) On July 30, 2015, the mandate issued. On August 28, 

2015, pursuant to this court’s order, petitioner filed a motion to expand the record. As it was 

unopposed, it was granted on October 7, 2015. 

 A review of the expanded record in light of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals order 

directing this court to consider petitioner’s diligence in pursuing his rights through the date of 

filing the amended petition, June 3, 2011, indicates that petitioner had written over thirty letters to 

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 68 Filed 10/19/15 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 

2

his attorney inquiring about his case prior to that date. See ECF No. 65-2. In light of those letters 

pertaining to petitioner’s diligence, as addressed by the Ninth Circuit, respondent will be given 

the opportunity to file a brief in opposition to a potential finding of diligence. Should respondent 

decline to oppose a potential finding in petitioner’s favor on this issue, he shall file a statement of 

non-opposition. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. Within twenty-eight days of this order, respondent shall file a brief on the issue of 

petitioner’s diligence, or a statement of non-opposition to the potential finding of diligence. 

2. Petitioner may file a response to any brief in opposition within fourteen days 

thereafter. 

Dated: October 19, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076/Luna0627.brf 

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 68 Filed 10/19/15 Page 2 of 2