Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05234/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05234-0/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

RICHARD ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

A. A. LAMARQUE, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:04-cv-05234-REC-TAG HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE

TO FILE AMENDED PETITION NUNC PRO

TUNC (Doc. 18)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO FILE AMENDED PETITION

PREVIOUSLY LODGED ON AUGUST 4,

2005 (Doc. 18)

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT ANSWER

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SERVE DOCUMENTS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner filed his original petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 29, 2004. (Doc. 1). 

That original petition contained four grounds for relief; Ground Four, challenging the sufficiency of

the evidence as to a prior conviction used to enhance Petitioner’s sentence, was unexhausted. (Id.).

On May 19, 2004, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition because Ground Four was

unexhausted. (Doc. 8). 

Case 1:04-cv-05234-LJO-JMD Document 20 Filed 08/17/05 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

 On September 28, 2004, the Court filed a Report and Recommendation that the petition be

dismissed for failure to exhaust Ground Four. (Doc. 11). Petitioner filed an amended petition for

writ of habeas corpus on September 7, 2004, deleting Ground Four. (Doc. 10). Petitioner filed his

objections to the Report and Recommendation on October 19, 2004. (Doc. 12). In his objections,

Petitioner acknowledged that Ground Four was unexhausted, indicated he had filed an amended

petition deleting the unexhausted claim, explained that he had filed a habeas corpus petition in the

California Supreme Court seeking to exhaust Ground Four, and asked the Court to hold the case in

abeyance pending a decision in the state habeas proceeding. (Id.). On December 29, 2004, the Court

issued an order construing the amended petition as including a request to file an amended petition,

vacating the Report and Recommendation of September 28, 2004, and granting the request for a stay. 

(Doc. 13). 

Thereafter, Petitioner complied with the Court’s order to file regular status reports. (Docs.

14-17). In his last status report, dated August 4, 2005, Petitioner indicated that the California

Supreme Court denied his habeas corpus petition on July 20, 2005. (Doc. 17). Concurrently,

Petitioner sought to file an amended petition that contained the original exhausted grounds as well as

the newly-exhausted Ground Four. Because the new petition had been filed without leave of the

Court, the Clerk of the Court lodged, rather than filed, the new petition pending further order of this

Court. (Doc. 18).

DISCUSSION

Although Petitioner was instructed that once the state court ruled on his habeas corpus

petition he had thirty days within which to file a motion for leave to file an amended petition,

Petitioner nevertheless chose to directly file the amended petition without first asking leave of the

Court to do so. Nevertheless, liberally construing a habeas petitioner’s pleadings, the Court will

construe the petition lodged with the Clerk of the Court on August 4, 2005, to include an implicit

request for leave to file an amended petition. Additionally, the Court hereby grants leave for the

filing of said amended petition. (Doc. 18).

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05234-LJO-JMD Document 20 Filed 08/17/05 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

1

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that upon the court’s determination that summary

dismissal is inappropriate, the “judge shall order the respondent to file an answer or other pleading . . . or to take such other

action as the judge deems appropriate.”

2

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are “applicable to habeas corpus proceedings to the extent that the practice

in such proceedings are not set forth in the statutes of the United States and has heretofore conformed to the practice of civil

actions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(2). Rule 11 also provides “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not

inconsistent with these rules, may be applied, when appropriate, to the petitions filed under these rules.” Rule 11, Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

3

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has conducted a

preliminary review of Petitioner’s amended petition.1 Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,2 the Court

HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Petitioner’s request for leave to file an amended petition (Doc. 18), is HEREBY

GRANTED;

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file the previously lodged amended petition

dated August 4, 2005 (Doc. 18);

3. Respondent SHALL FILE an ANSWER addressing the merits of the Petitioner’s

Petition within NINETY (90) days of the date of service of this order. Rule 4, Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases; Cluchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1473-1474 (9th

Cir. 1985) (court has discretion to fix time for filing an Answer.). 

4. Respondent SHALL INCLUDE with the Answer any and all transcripts or other

documents necessary for the resolution of the issues presented in the Petitioner’s

Petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

5. Any argument by Respondent that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim(s)

SHALL BE MADE in an ANSWER that also addresses the merits of the claims

asserted. This is to enable the Court to determine whether Petitioner meets an

exception to procedural default. See, Paradis v. Arave, 130 F.3d 385, 396 (9th Cir.

1997) (Procedurally defaulted claims may be reviewed on the merits to serve the ends

of justice); Jones v. Delo, 56 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 1995) (the answer to the question that

it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror fairly considering all the evidence,

Case 1:04-cv-05234-LJO-JMD Document 20 Filed 08/17/05 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

including the new evidence, would have found Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt necessarily requires a review of the merits). 

6. Petitioner’s TRAVERSE, if any, is due THIRTY (30) days from the date

Respondent’s Answer is filed with the Court. 

7. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to SERVE a copy of this order along with a

copy of the amended petition (Doc. 18), and any exhibits or attachments, on the

Attorney General or his representative. 

All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless

otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 78-230(h). All provisions of Local Rule 11-110 are

applicable to this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05234-LJO-JMD Document 20 Filed 08/17/05 Page 4 of 4