Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00527/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00527-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OMAR M. MELENDEZ, AR 7172,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. KOEHN, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-0527 CRB (PR)

ORDER REGARDING

RESPONDENT’S REQUEST

FOR CLARIFICATION

(Dkt. #8)

Per order filed on March 16, 2015, the court (Vadas, M.J.) found that

petitioner’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

stated a cognizable claim for violation of his Fifth Amendment rights and

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426 (1966), and ordered respondent to show cause

why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.

Respondent has filed a request for clarification noting that the documents

served upon him did not include a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and that

none of the documents in the court’s ECF System contain a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. Respondent’s request for clarification (dkt. #8) is granted. It

appears that instead of uploading the petition for a writ of habeas corpus onto the

court’s ECF System as document number 1, the clerk inadvertently uploaded

Case 3:15-cv-00527-CRB Document 12 Filed 05/18/15 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

petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis as document number 1 and

again as document number 2. The clerk has corrected the matter and the

operative petition for a writ of habeas corpus now appears on the court’s ECF

System as document number 11.

Good cause appearing therefor, respondent shall file with the court and

serve on petitioner, within 60 days of the issuance of this order, an answer

conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent

shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the

state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a

determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt

of the answer.

Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of

an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner must

serve and file an opposition or statement of non-opposition not more than 28 days

after the motion is served and filed, and respondent must serve and file a reply to

an opposition not more than 14 days after the opposition is served and filed.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 18, 2015 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.15\Melendez, O.15-0527.or1.wpd

Case 3:15-cv-00527-CRB Document 12 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 2