Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALLEN YOCOM,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, LAURA 

ELDRIDGE, AND ATTORNEY 

GENERAL,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-NONE-HBK

ORDER VACATING APRIL 12, 2021 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 17)

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, 

AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF PETITON

(Doc. No. 1)

Petitioner Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). On April 12, 2021, this 

court issued findings and recommendations recommending that the petition be dismissed for 

petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims. (Doc. No. 17). The court found that because petitioner 

was currently seeking habeas relief before the California Supreme Court at the time of filing his 

federal habeas petition, the federal petition was unexhausted and premature and should be 

dismissed. (See generally id.). However, the court takes notice that petitioner’s habeas petition 

before the California Supreme Court was denied review on April 28, 2021. See Yocom (Michael 

Allen) on H.C., No. S266454 (Cal. Apr. 28, 2021). Because petitioner no longer has a case 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 23 Filed 05/10/21 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

pending in the state courts, the court will vacate the April 12, 2021 findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 17).

Accordingly, the court now reviews the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. See R. Governing § 2254 Cases 4; 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Under Rule 4, a district 

court must dismiss a habeas petition if it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 

See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 

1127 (9th Cir. 1998). It does not plainly appear that petitioner is not entitled to relief. Therefore, 

the court will order the respondent to respond to the petition, set a briefing schedule, and direct 

service.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The court’s April 12, 2021 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 17) are 

VACATED.

2. Within sixty days of the date of service of this order, respondent must file a response 

to the petition. 

3. A response may be one of the following: 

A. An answer addressing the merits of the petition. Any argument by 

respondent that petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim must be raised 

in the answer, which must also address the merits of petitioner’s claims. 

B. A motion to dismiss the petition. 

4. Within sixty days of the date of service of this order, respondent must file all 

transcripts and other documents necessary for resolving the issues presented in the 

petition. See R. Governing Section 2254 Cases 5(c). 

5. If respondent files an answer to the petition, petitioner may file a reply within thirty 

days of the date of service of respondent’s answer. If no reply is filed within thirty 

days, the petition and answer are deemed submitted.

6. If respondent moves to dismiss, petitioner must file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition within twenty-one days of the date of service of respondent’s 

motion. Any reply to an opposition to the motion to dismiss must be filed within 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 23 Filed 05/10/21 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

seven days after the opposition is served. The motion to dismiss will be considered 

submitted twenty-eight days after the service of the motion or when the reply is 

filed, whichever comes first. See Local Rule 230(l).

7. Respondent must complete and return to the court within thirty days a form stating 

whether respondent consents or declines to consent to the jurisdiction of a United 

States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

8. The clerk of the court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the state’s attorney 

general or the state’s attorney general’s representative.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2021 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 23 Filed 05/10/21 Page 3 of 3