Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05489/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05489-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTORIANO LEMOS MEJIA,

Petitioner,

v.

SYLVIA GARCIA, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 03-5489 REC DLB HC

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE AND GRANTING RESPONDENT

THIRTY DAYS TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

[Doc. 21]

ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

[Doc. 20]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Pursuant to the Court’s order of November 17, 2003, Respondent filed an answer to the

petition on February 13, 2004, and Petitioner filed a traverse on September 1, 2004. On July 14,

2005, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to submit supplemental briefing addressing

the application, if any, of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Gibson v. Ortiz, 387 F.3d 812 (9 Cir. th

2004). Respondent failed to file a response to the Court’s order. Therefore, on August 24, 2005,

the Court issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to

comply with the Court’s order. After the deadline for complying with that order, Respondent

filed a response on September 30, 2005. 

In its response, Respondent contends that the case was originally assigned to Deputy

Attorney General Sharon E. Loughner, who in the Spring of 2004 transferred to the Los Angeles

Case 1:03-cv-05489-LJO -DLB Document 23 Filed 10/07/05 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 A review of the Court’s internal system indicates that both the Court’s order directing supplemental 1

briefing and the subsequent order to show cause were emailed to Deputy Attorney General Sharon E. Loughner. 

2

Office. Respondent contends that no mail has been received in this case since September 2004. 

1

Respondent acknowledges that since the implementation of the Court’s electronic filing in

January 2005, Respondent failed to reassign this matter to another deputy and have a designation

of counsel filed with the Court. Respondent requests that the Court vacate the order to show

cause and grant an extension of time to submit the supplemental briefing in light of having no

actual knowledge of the Court’s orders. 

On September 13, 2005, Petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to submit the

supplemental briefing. Petitioner is advised however that the Court directed only Respondent to

submit supplemental briefing and Respondent has yet to do so. Petitioner may file a

supplemental traverse to Respondent’s supplemental briefing, if he desires to do so. Therefore,

Petitioner’s request for an extension of time is premature, at this juncture. 

Good cause having been demonstrated, the Court’s order to show cause issued August 24,

2005, is HEREBY DISCHARGED, and Respondent is granted thirty days from the date of

service of this order to submit supplemental briefing in accordance with the Court’s July 14,

2005, order. Within thirty (30) days from the date Respondent submits its supplemental briefing,

Petitioner may file a supplemental traverse, if he desires to do so. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 5, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05489-LJO -DLB Document 23 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 2