Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00997/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00997-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TIMOTHY RALPH CARRILLO,

Petitioner, 

v. 

JIMMY SMITH, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 15-cv-0997-TEH 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO SHOW 

CAUSE 

Re: Dkt. No. 16 

Petitioner Timothy Ralph Carrillo, a state prisoner, 

proceeds with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner asserts the following claims: (1) 

his federal speedy trial and right to due process was violated 

when the trial court denied his motion to dismiss for failure to 

comply with California's codification of the Interstate Agreement 

on Detainers (IAD); (2) ineffective assistance of trial and 

appellate counsel for failure to obtain pertinent IAD documents; 

and (3) his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. 

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the 

first claim is exhausted but the final two claims are 

unexhausted. Petitioner has filed an opposition seeking to 

strike the final two claims and proceed solely on the first 

exhausted claim regarding the denial of his motion to dismiss 

with respect to the IAD. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

Case 3:15-cv-00997-TEH Document 25 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 3
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 Californi

a

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 16) is 

GRANTED and claims two and three are struck from the petition. 

The petition continues on claim one. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 

Petitioner, within sixty-three (63) 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 granted. Respondent shall file with 

the Answer and serve on Petitioner 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 within twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the 

Answer. 

3. In lieu of an Answer, Respondent may file a Motion to 

Dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 within thirty-five (35) 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. 

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the 

Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of the 

document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner also must keep the 

Case 3:15-cv-00997-TEH Document 25 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Court and all parties informed of any change of address by filing 

a separate document entitled “Notice of Change of Address.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 09/16/2015 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.15\Carrillo0997.mtd.docx

Case 3:15-cv-00997-TEH Document 25 Filed 09/17/15 Page 3 of 3