Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02546/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02546-1/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

K:\COMMON\Major\CASES\Smith v. Wong (habe)\reopening case and setting briefing schedule.wpd, 4197 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARQUELL DION SMITH, Civil No. 06cv2546 BTM (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER REOPENING CASE AND

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

v.

R. WONG, Warden,

Respondent.

On November 15, 2006, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In its November 30, 2006 Order, the Court noted the possible

dismissal of the petition for failure to pay the filing fee or move to proceed In Forma Pauperis. On

February 14, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In it’s March

1, 2007, Order, the Court denied Petitioner’s Motion, and advised Petitioner that he was required to pay

the $5.00 filing fee no later than April 30, 2007 or his case would be dismissed. 

On April 3, 2007, Petitioner paid the filing fee. The Court ORDERS that this case be reopened.

Further, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing petitions for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and upon a preliminary review of the Petition, IT IS

ORDERED that:

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-02546-MMA-BLM Document 11 Filed 04/19/07 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 1

 If Respondent contends Petitioner has failed to exhaust any state remedies as to any ground for relief alleged in

the Petition, the motion to dismiss shall also specify the state remedies still available to Petitioner.

K:\COMMON\Major\CASES\Smith v. Wong (habe)\reopening case and setting briefing schedule.wpd, 4197 -2-

1. The Clerk of this Court shall promptly (a) serve a copy of the Petition and a copy of this

Order on the Attorney General for the State of California, or his authorized agent; and (b) serve a copy

of this Order on Petitioner.

2. If Respondent contends the Petition can be decided without the Court’s reaching the merits

of Petitioner’s claims (e.g., because Respondent contends Petitioner has failed to exhaust any state

remedies as to any ground for relief alleged in the Petition, or that the Petition is barred by the statute

of limitations, or that the Petition is subject to dismissal under Rule 9 of the Rules Governing § 2254

Cases, or that all of the claims are procedurally defaulted, or that Petitioner is not in custody),

Respondent shall file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases no

later than June 4, 2007. The motion to dismiss shall not address the merits of Petitioner’s claims, but

rather shall address all grounds upon which Respondent contends dismissal without reaching the merits

of Petitioner’s claims is warranted.1

 At the time the motion to dismiss is filed, Respondent shall lodge

with the Court all records bearing on Respondent’s contention in this regard. A hearing date is not

required for the motion to dismiss.

3. If Respondent files a motion to dismiss, Petitioner shall file his opposition, if any, to the

motion no later than July 5, 2007. At the time the opposition is filed, Petitioner shall lodge with the

Court any records not lodged by Respondent which Petitioner believes may be relevant to the Court’s

determination of the motion.

4. Unless the Court orders otherwise, Respondent shall not file a reply to Petitioner’s opposition

to a motion to dismiss. If the motion is denied, the Court will afford Respondent adequate time to

respond to Petitioner’s claims on the merits.

5. If Respondent does not contend that the Petition can be decided without the Court reaching

the merits of Petitioner’s claims, Respondent shall file and serve an answer to the Petition, and a

memorandum of points and authorities in support of such answer, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases no later than June 18, 2007. At the time the answer is filed, Respondent shall

lodge with the Court all records bearing on the merits of Petitioner’s claims. The lodgments shall be

Case 3:06-cv-02546-MMA-BLM Document 11 Filed 04/19/07 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

K:\COMMON\Major\CASES\Smith v. Wong (habe)\reopening case and setting briefing schedule.wpd, 4197 -3-

accompanied by a notice of lodgment which shall be captioned “Notice of Lodgment in 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 Habeas Corpus Case — To Be Sent to Clerk’s Office.” Respondent shall not combine

separate pleadings, orders or other items into a combined lodgment entry. Each item shall be numbered

separately and sequentially.

6. Petitioner may file a traverse to matters raised in the answer no later than July 18, 2007. Any

traverse by Petitioner (a) shall state whether Petitioner admits or denies each allegation of fact contained

in the answer; (b) shall be limited to facts or arguments responsive to matters raised in the answer; and

(c) shall not raise new grounds for relief that were not asserted in the Petition. Grounds for relief

withheld until the traverse will not be considered. No traverse shall exceed ten (10) pages in length

absent advance leave of Court for good cause shown.

7. A request by a party for an extension of time within which to file any of the pleadings

required by this Order should be made in advance of the due date of the pleading, and the Court will

grant such a request only upon a showing of good cause. Any such request shall be accompanied by a

declaration under penalty of perjury explaining why an extension of time is necessary.

8. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, this case shall be deemed submitted on the day

following the date Petitioner’s opposition to a motion to dismiss and/or his traverse is due.

9. Every document delivered to the Court must include a certificate of service attesting that a

copy of such document was served on opposing counsel (or on the opposing party, if such party is not

represented by counsel). Any document delivered to the Court without a certificate of service will be

returned to the submitting party and will be disregarded by the Court.

10. Petitioner shall immediately notify the Court and counsel for Respondent of any change of

Petitioner’s address. If Petitioner fails to keep the Court informed of where Petitioner may be contacted,

this action will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 19, 2007

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02546-MMA-BLM Document 11 Filed 04/19/07 Page 3 of 3