Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06648/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06648-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

SHIRLEY SORIANO,

Petitioner,

v.

W. Z. JENKINS,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-06648-WHO (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Shirley Soriano seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 from a 

prison disciplinary decision. The petition for such relief states cognizable claims. 

Accordingly, on or before April 22, 2019, respondent shall file an answer or a dispositive 

motion in response to the habeas petition.

BACKGROUND

Soriano is a federal prisoner who was convicted in Los Angeles and is housed at 

FCI-Dublin. In 2018, her jailors found her guilty of the unauthorized use of email and the 

telephone. As punishment, Soriano lost various privileges and 14 days of time credit. 

Case 3:18-cv-06648-WHO Document 9 Filed 02/20/19 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 California

DISCUSSION

The Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus from a person claiming 

to be “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why 

the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or 

person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

Soriano challenges on due process grounds the prison disciplinary decision and its 

attendant punishment. When liberally construed, she has stated claims for relief. 

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments 

thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the United States Attorney General. The 

Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

2. On or before April 22, 2019, respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 

petitioner, an answer showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted 

based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. 

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, she shall do so by filing a traverse 

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the 

answer is filed. 

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, on or before April 22, 2019, a motion 

to dismiss on procedural grounds. 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 (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the 

Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any opposition is 

filed.

5. 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. 

Case 3:18-cv-06648-WHO Document 9 Filed 02/20/19 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 California

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. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this 

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

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. The filing fee has been paid. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2019

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06648-WHO Document 9 Filed 02/20/19 Page 3 of 3