Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01402/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01402-2/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

- 1 - 06cv1402

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESLEY W. HUNTER,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06-1402-BEN(LSP)

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

v. BRIEFING

CHARLES M. HARRISON,

Respondent.

On July 10, 2007, Petitioner Wesley W. Hunter (“Petitioner”)

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§2254. On August 28, 2007, Respondent Charles M. Harrison

(“Respondent”) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition. The Motion

to Dismiss asserts that the Petition is untimely and barred by the

statute of limitations. On September 17, 2007, Petitioner filed a

“Response to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss,” which the Court

construes as Petitioner’s Opposition (“Opposition”) to the Motion to

Dismiss.

In the Opposition, Petitioner asserts that on December 8, 2004,

he was “transferred from Centinela State Prison to Lancaster State

Prison” and was held in “‘orientation’ status until March 2005. (The

entire prison system was back-logged due to over-crowding there...

Case 3:06-cv-01402-BEN-LSP Document 14 Filed 09/18/07 Page 1 of 4
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 - 06cv1402

all of the ‘Orientation’ inmates were kept on lock-down (sic) status

with absolutely no access to the library.” (Opposition at 2-3)

Petitioner also asserts that he was placed in “Ad. Seg.” and

that “all of (his) property had been seized by investigative staff

and was not returned to (him) until late March 2006...” (Opposition

at 3)

Petitioner’s allegations may impact the Court’s analyses of

whether the Petition is barred by the statute of limitations.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

On or before October 27, 2007, Respondent shall file a

Supplemental Brief that addresses the following:

1. The date Petitioner was physically transferred from

Centinela State Prison to Lancaster State Prison.

2. Petitioner’s status at Lancaster State Prison from the

date he arrived there, and whether Petitioner was on

“Orientation” status at the time he arrived there.

3. If Petitioner was on “Orientation” status when he arrived

at Lancaster State Prison, the rights and privileges

Petitioner had or received, and did not have or receive,

while on “Orientation” status. 

4. If Petitioner was on “Orientation” status when he arrived

at Lancaster State Prison, the date(s) his “Orientation”

status was changed to another status, and a description

of, and the meaning and/or significance of the new status,

if any.

5. Whether Petitioner was kept on “lock-down” status at

Lancaster State Prison, and if so, the dates thereof.

6. If Petitioner was on “lock-down” status at any time while

Case 3:06-cv-01402-BEN-LSP Document 14 Filed 09/18/07 Page 2 of 4
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 - 06cv1402

he was at Lancaster State Prison, whether he had access to

the law library during the lock-down period(s).

7. The date Petitioner was placed in Administrative

Segregation from which he was released in “late March

2006,” and the reasons therefor.

8. If Petitioner was placed in Administrative Segregation at

the time noted above, the rights and privileges, including

law library access, Petitioner had, or did not have,

during that time.

9. Respondent shall lodge with the Court all documents and

records that support responses to the above referenced

issues.

10. Respondent shall either lodge with the Court, or cite in

the Supplemental Brief, any rules, regulations or statutes

that set forth the definitions, procedures, restrictions

and/or policies of the following, as they directly relate

to Petitioner:

a. Orientation

b. Lock-down

c. Administrative Segregation

As to each of a, b and c above,

 i. How is the inmate physically housed?

 ii. What, if any, restrictions generally apply, and 

 specifically applied to Petitioner?

 iii. If there are general differences between a, b and c

 above, what conditions or restrictions were imposed

 on Petitioner from the time he arrived at Lancaster

 State Prison?

Case 3:06-cv-01402-BEN-LSP Document 14 Filed 09/18/07 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 06cv1402

The responses to the foregoing inquiries shall be tailored to

address Petitioner’s arguments that he was unable to access the law

library and/or that the restrictions placed on him prevented him

from having law library access. For example, if an inmate is

normally allowed a certain number of hours of law library access per

week or per month, please state the number of hours per week or per

month. Please also state whether Petitioner was afforded the same

amount of hours per week or per month for law library access while

he was at Lancaster State Prison, or, if not, why not.

On or before December 1, 2007, Petitioner shall file a Response

to Respondent’s Supplemental Brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 18, 2007

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01402-BEN-LSP Document 14 Filed 09/18/07 Page 4 of 4