Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05086/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05086-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pleasant Valley State Prison Warden
Respondent
Brian James Schrodt
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

BRIAN JAMES SCHRODT,

Petitioner,

v.

PLEASANT VALLEY STATE 

PRISON WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 04-5086 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Brian James Schrodt filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The court reviewed the petition and issued an order to show cause. Respondent

then moved to dismiss on the ground that the petition was mixed, i.e., contained both exhausted

and unexhausted claims. The court determined that the petition was a mixed petition claims and

ordered Schrodt to elect how he wished to deal with the problem. Schrodt recently filed an

Election By Petitioner in which he stated that he elected to dismiss the unexhausted claims and

go forward with only the exhausted claims, i.e., Claims 1(a), 3, 5 and 6. 

Accordingly, the court now dismisses the unexhausted claims, i.e., Claims 1(b), 2, 4, 5, 9-

11, and 13-14, and sets the following briefing schedule in order to move this case toward

resolution:

Case 3:04-cv-05086-SI Document 10 Filed 07/07/05 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

1. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before August 19, 2005, 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 September 30, 3005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July __7_, 2005 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05086-SI Document 10 Filed 07/07/05 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN JAMES SCHRODT,

Petitioner,

v.

PLEASANT VALLEY STATE 

PRISON WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 04-5086 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Brian James Schrodt filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The court reviewed the petition and issued an order to show cause. Respondent

then moved to dismiss on the ground that the petition was mixed, i.e., contained both exhausted

and unexhausted claims. The court determined that the petition was a mixed petition claims and

ordered Schrodt to elect how he wished to deal with the problem. Schrodt recently filed an

Election By Petitioner in which he stated that he elected to dismiss the unexhausted claims and

go forward with only the exhausted claims, i.e., Claims 1(a), 3, 5 and 6. 

Accordingly, the court now dismisses the unexhausted claims, i.e., Claims 1(b), 2, 4, 5, 9-

11, and 13-14, and sets the following briefing schedule in order to move this case toward

resolution:

Case 3:04-cv-05086-SI Document 10 Filed 07/07/05 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 2

1. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before August 19, 2005, 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 September 30, 3005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July __7_, 2005 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05086-SI Document 10 Filed 07/07/05 Page 4 of 4