Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01050/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01050-0/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

JEFFREY RICHARD INGLETT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

WARDEN D. ADAMS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-cv-01050-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO FILE

RESPONSE

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SERVE DOCUMENTS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS (Doc. 4)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

It appears that the petition was originally filed in the Southern District of California on

March 6, 2006, and then erroneously transferred to the Central District of California. (Doc. 1,

Exh. A). On March 20, 2006, the case was transferred to this Court. (Doc. 1, Exh. B). On

November 13, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for writ of mandamus. (Doc. 4). Essentially,

Petitioner seeks expedited treatment of his petition based on the pendency of this action since

2006. (Id.). 

The Court does not have a separate expedited calendar. The Court understands

Petitioner’s need and desire to have his case heard quickly as he believes that relief is warranted. 

However, the Court has pending before it at any given time hundreds of habeas cases wherein

each prisoner alleges that relief is warranted. This is especially true for challenges to the denial

of parole, since the majority of prisons in California are located within this Court’s jurisdiction. 

Case 1:06-cv-01050-CW Document 5 Filed 12/18/07 Page 1 of 5
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

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are “applicable to habeas corpus proceedings to the extent that the 1

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. 

2

Case management at the court proceeds by the order cases are received. Due to the high volume

of such cases and the Court’s diligent handling of each case, a court decision often takes time. 

Petitioner can rest assured that the Court acts to resolve all pending cases in the most efficient

manner possible. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1 Petitioner’s case will be heard in due course and the Motion for Writ of

Mandamus, which the Court construes as a motion to expedite treatment (Doc. 4),

is DENIED. 

2. After conducting a preliminary review of the Petition, pursuant to Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 1

A. Respondent SHALL FILE a RESPONSE. A Response can be made by

filing one of the following: 

(1) AN ANSWER addressing the merits of the Petition and due within

NINETY N (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 (9 Cir. 1985) (court has discretion to fix time for filing an th

Answer.).

S Respondent SHALL INCLUDE with the Answer any and all

transcripts or other documents necessary for the resolution of the

issues presented in the Petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases.

S Any argument by Respondent that Petitioner has procedurally

Case 1:06-cv-01050-CW Document 5 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that upon the court’s determination that 2

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.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (emphasis

added); see, also, Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 and 5 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (stating that a

dismissal may obviate the need for filing an answer on the substantive merits of the petition and that the Attorney

General may file a Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust.); also, White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 60203 (9th

Cir.1989) (providing that Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 4 are proper in a federal habeas proceeding.) 

3

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,

including the new evidence, would have found Petitioner guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt necessarily requires a review of the

merits). 

S Petitioner’s TRAVERSE, if any, is due THIRTY (30) days from

the date Respondent’s Answer is filed with the Court.

(2) A MOTION TO DISMISS due within SIXTY(60) days of the date of

service of this order based on the following grounds: 

2

i. EXHAUSTION - 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A Motion to Dismiss

for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies SHALL

INCLUDE copies of all the Petitioner’s state court filings and

dispositive rulings so as to allow the Court to examine the

limitations issue. See, Ford v. Hubbard, 305 F.3d 875 (9 Cir. th

2002); Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9 Cir. 2003); th

ii. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). A

Motion to Dismiss the Petition as filed beyond the one year

Case 1:06-cv-01050-CW Document 5 Filed 12/18/07 Page 3 of 5
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

limitations period SHALL INCLUDE copies of all Petitioner’s

state court filings and dispositive rulings. 

iii. SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE Petitions - 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). A

Motion to Dismiss the Petition on the basis of § 2244(b) SHALL

include a copy of the previously filed federal Petition and

disposition thereof.

B. OPPOSITIONS to Motions to Dismiss SHALL be served and filed within

EIGHTEEN (18) days, plus three days for mailing. All other Oppositions

SHALL be served and filed within EIGHT (8) days, plus three days for

mailing. REPLIES to Oppositions to Motions to Dismiss SHALL be

served and filed within eight (8) days, plus three days for mailing. Replies

to Oppositions to all other Motions SHALL be served and filed within

eight (8) days, plus three days for mailing. If no opposition is filed, all

motions are deemed submitted at the expiration of the opposition period. 

C. Unless already submitted, both Respondent and Petitioner SHALL

COMPLETE and RETURN to the Court along with the Response or

Motion to Dismiss, a Consent form indicating whether the party consents

or declines to consent to the jurisdiction of a the United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

D. RESPONDENT SHALL submit a Notice of Appearance as attorney of

record within SIXTY (60) days of the date of service of this order for

purposes of service of court orders. See, Local Rule 83-182(a), 5-135(c).

E. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to SERVE a copy of this order

along with a copy of the PETITION and any exhibits/attachments, on the

Attorney General or his representative. 

///

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01050-CW Document 5 Filed 12/18/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

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: December 17, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01050-CW Document 5 Filed 12/18/07 Page 5 of 5