Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01402/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01402-7/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACOB THOMAS DEMASTERS,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1402 DLB HC

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT ANSWER ADDRESSING

EXHAUSTED CLAIM

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 10, 2006, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the instant

petition as a “mixed” petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. (Court Doc.

17.) The Court informed Petitioner that in lieu of suffering dismissal of the entire petition, he

could move to withdraw the unexhausted claims and proceed with the exhausted claim only. 

(Id.) On August 21, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw the unexhausted claims. (Court

Doc. 18.) In an order issued concurrently herewith, the Court is granting Petitioner’s request to

withdraw the unexhausted claims. 

Accordingly, 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

Case 1:05-cv-01402-DLB Document 20 Filed 08/31/06 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 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

Respondent SHALL SUBMIT an answer addressing the merits of the Petition wtihin FORTYFIVE Days from 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 th

for filing an Answer.). 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. Any argument by Respondent that Petitioner has

procedurally defaulted a claim(s) SHALL BE MADE in the 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 (9 Cir. 1997) th

(Procedurally defaulted claims may be reviewed on the merits to serve the ends of justice); Jones

v. Delo, 56 F.3d 878 (8 Cir. 1995) (the answer to the question that it is more likely than not that th

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).

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

is filed with the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 29, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01402-DLB Document 20 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 2