Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01048/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01048-6/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

RENO FUENTES RIOS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION )

et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

)

____________________________________)

1:08-cv-01048-AWI-JLT HC

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO

RE-SERVE PETITIONER WITH THE

MOTION TO DISMISS FILED ON

FEBRUARY 13, 2009 AT PETITIONER’S

CORRECT PRISON ADDRESS AND POST

OFFICE BOX NUMBER

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER THIRTY

DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RE-SERVICE

OF RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHIN WHICH TO FILE FURTHER

OBJECTIONS OR OPPOSITION TO

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The original federal petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed on

January 18, 2008, in the Sacramento Division of this Court. (Doc. 1). On May 23, 2008, Petitioner

filed his first amended petition. (Doc. 9). In his original petition, Petitioner challenges a July 2006

gang validation and Petitioner’s subsequent confinement in administrative segregation. (Doc. 1). In

his amended petition, Petitioner raises only three claims, all of which again appear to be variations of

his challenge to the State of California’s treatment of gang members. (Doc. 9). 

On July 22, 2008, the case was transferred to the Fresno Division. (Doc. 11). On October

Case 1:08-cv-01048-AWI-JLT Document 33 Filed 01/06/10 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

 2

15, 2008, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response. (Doc. 15). On February 13, 2009,

Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss, contending that the petition is untimely. (Doc. 27). 

On March 6, 2009, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Affidavit for extension of time to submit

opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss.” (Doc. 28). In that document, Petitioner alleges that

he received only three pages of Respondent’s motion and that the proof of service on said motion

indicates it was sent to the incorrect prison address. Petitioner alleged that he required additional

time and a complete set of moving documents in order to adequately respond to the motion to

dismiss. 

On September 1, 2009, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to grant the motion

to dismiss the parole eligibility claim as untimely, but to deny the motion to dismiss the gang

validation. (Doc. 30). In his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,

Petitioner again renewed his argument that he had never been served with a complete set of moving

papers, thus limiting his ability to respond to Respondent’s documents. (Doc. 31). Respondent has

never opposed either of Petitioner’s requests for additional time or for re-service of the motion to

dismiss. 

Upon careful review of the file in this case, the original Proof of Service attached to

Respondent’ motion to dismiss clearly indicates that the motion was served on Petitioner at P.O. Box

5246, Corcoran, California. (Doc. 27, p. 9). Petitioner has appended to his original affidavit a

photocopy of the envelope purportedly from the motion to dismiss that contains the address of the

P.O. Box 5246, thus confirming that Respondent sent the motion to Petitioner at this address. (Doc.

28, pp. 10; 12-13). However, at all times during these proceedings, Petitioner’s official mailing

address has been P.O. Box 3481. It is to this address that the Court has sent all correspondence and

orders in these proceedings. 

Of course, it is difficult to determine, from these scant facts alone, whether Petitioner ever

received a full and complete copy of the motion to dismiss. However, Petitioner has alleged under

penalty of perjury in his affidavit of March 6, 2009, that he only received pages one, two, and eight. 

(Doc. 28, p. 4). Nothing supplied by Respondent contradicts Petitioner’s allegations or the evidence

in this record.

Case 1:08-cv-01048-AWI-JLT Document 33 Filed 01/06/10 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

 3

Therefore, erring on the side of caution, the Court will require Respondent within ten days of

the date of service of this Order to re-serve on Petitioner at his correct address, i.e., P.O. Box 3481, a

complete copy of the motion to dismiss and proof of service. Thereafter, Petitioner shall have an

additional thirty days within which to file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or

supplemental objections to the motion to dismiss. The Findings and Recommendations of

September 11, 2009 (Doc. 30), will remain pending until either Petitioner’s deadline for filing has

passed without further filings from Petitioner, or until the Court has had an opportunity to fully

review any subsequent filings Petitioner’s may make in this case after proper service by Respondent

of the motion to dismiss. 

 ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Respondent must RE-SERVE a complete copy of the Motion to Dismiss filed

February 13, 2009, on Petitioner at his correct address, as noted above, within ten (10)

days of the date of service of this Order. Respondent need not electronically re-file

the motion to dismiss itself. However, Respondent must electronically file with the

Court a Proof of Service indicating service of the motion to dismiss at the correct

address for Petitioner. 

2. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service by the Respondent

of the complete copy of the Motion to Dismiss filed on February 13, 2009, within

which to file any further opposition or objections he may wish to file with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-01048-AWI-JLT Document 33 Filed 01/06/10 Page 3 of 3