Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04490/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04490-5/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,

v.

D. OLLISON, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-4490 SI (pr)

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

More than two years ago, the court issued an order to show cause why the writ of habeas

corpus should not be granted. Thereafter, petitioner filed an unsuccessful appeal, respondent

filed an unsuccessful motion to dismiss the petition as untimely filed, and the court waited for

an amended petition petitioner indicated he wanted to file. Petitioner has now reported that he

does not intend to further amend his petition and has asked that the action proceed with only the

claims in his original petition. 

Petitioner's motion for an order requiring respondent to answer the petition is GRANTED.

(Docket # 38.) The court now sets the following briefing schedule on the claims in the original

habeas petition, as identified at pages 2-4 in the August 15, 2006 Order To Show Cause:

1. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before October 31, 2008,

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 issued. Respondent must file with the

answer a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and

that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

2. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before December 5, 2008.

Case 3:06-cv-04490-SI Document 39 Filed 08/31/08 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 motion to lift the stay is DENIED as unnecessary because the court never

imposed a stay in this action. (Docket # 36.) In fact, the court specifically denied his request

for a stay in the order filed September 19, 2006. 

Petitioner filed a "response to 'second notice - appeal fee payment due,'" in which he

requested that the court set aside the filing fee imposed on him for that appeal. He argued that

no fee is owed: "because his appeal was rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, no appeal

was actually taken." Response, p. 1 (Docket # 35.) The request to set aside the filing fee

obligation is DENIED because petitioner did file an appeal. The fee obligation exists for the

appeal taken, regardless of the fact that the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2008 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04490-SI Document 39 Filed 08/31/08 Page 2 of 2