Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06409/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06409-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONROE WALTER BURNS, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6409 OWW DLB HC

Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SERVE COURTESY COPY OF

vs. PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE AND DIRECTING

A.P. KANE, Warden, RESPONDENT TO FILE RESPONSE

Respondent.

 /

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on October 18, 2004, raising nine claims for relief. On

December 20, 2004, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. Petitioner filed an opposition on January 4,

2005. 

On January 14, 2005, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Respondent’s

motion to dismiss be granted. Specifically, the Court found that part of Ground One and Ground Three

of the petition were not exhausted. 

On February 11, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. In the

Case 1:04-cv-06409-LJO -DLB Document 14 Filed 07/13/05 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

2

objections, Petitioner requests that the Court hold the petition in abeyance while he exhausts the

unexhausted claims in state court. 

On April 29, 2005, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the motion for abeyance

should be granted in light of Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005). Petitioner filed a response on

May 26, 2005. Petitioner did not however serve a copy of his response on opposing counsel. Pursuant

to the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all pleadings filed with the Court must be

served on the opposing party. Local Rule 5-135(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 5. The Court will this one instance

serve a courtesy copy on opposing counsel. However, this is a one-time exception and Petitioner’s

future failure to serve the opposing party will result in the document being stricken from the record. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court shall serve a courtesy copy of Petitioner’s May 26, 2005, response

to the Court’s order to show cause on opposing counsel; and

2. Within twenty (20) days from the date of serve, Respondent shall file an opposition or

statement of non-opposition pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06409-LJO -DLB Document 14 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 2