Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05878/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05878-7/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

 In Respondent’s answer, Respondent’s counsel asserts that Jim Hamlet is no longer the Warden at the 1

Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California. The acting Warden is currently A.P. Kane, therefore, pursuant

to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Warden Kane is substituted in place of former Warden

Hamlet. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN S. GARCIA,

Petitioner,

v.

A.P. KANE,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 02-5878 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

1

The instant petition is ready for review on the merits as Respondent filed an answer to the

petition on August 9, 2005, and Petitioner filed a traverse on September 22, 2005. Also pending

is Petitioner’s May 26, 2005, motion for discovery. (Court Doc. 50.) 

In reviewing the record, the Court finds that additional briefing is necessary to resolve

Petitioner’s first ground for relief, namely, whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing

to challenge the constitutional validity of Petitioner’s prior convictions on direct appeal. 

Although Respondent argues that Petitioner’s challenge to the prior convictions is barred by

Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (2001), that argument does not resolve

Case 1:02-cv-05878-AWI-DLB Document 79 Filed 05/12/06 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

the issue of whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the validity of the

prior convictions on Petitioner’s direct appeal in state court. As such, the Court finds that

additional briefing by Respondent is necessary. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Respondent shall file

supplemental briefing addressing the claim of whether appellate counsel was

ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutional validity of Petitioner’s prior

convictions on direct appeal; and

2. Petitioner may file a response to Respondent’s supplemental briefing within thirty

(30) days from the date the briefing is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 11, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05878-AWI-DLB Document 79 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 2