Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01154/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01154-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brandon Price
Defendant
Roy Russ
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY RUSS,

Petitioner,

v.

BRANDON PRICE,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-1154-AWI-JDP (HC)

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, 

AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF 

DOCUMENTS

ECF No. 1

ORDER DISMISSING OUTSTANDING 

MOTIONS AS MOOT 

ECF Nos. 16, 19

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECUSAL AND TO STAY 

ECF No. 18

Petitioner Roy Russ, a civil detainee confined at Coalinga State Hospital, sought a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. On August 1, 2019, this court dismissed the 

instant petition for failure to state a federal habeas claim. ECF. No. 9. In accordance with a later 

finding that petitioner had stated two federal claims in his petition, the order dismissing the case

was vacated on January 16, 2020. ECF No. 20. Therefore, the case was reopened, and the 

petition is now under review by this court. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Case 1:18-cv-01154-AWI-HBK Document 21 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 3
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

Cases, the court must examine the habeas corpus petition and order a response to the petition 

unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. It does not plainly appear 

that petitioner is not entitled to relief. Therefore, we order the government to respond to the 

petition, set a briefing schedule, and direct service of documents.

Petitioner recently filed three motions for our consideration. First, petitioner filed a 

motion for clarification, seeking the court to clarify its jurisdiction and provide the current status 

of the case. ECF No. 16. The instant order confirms that this court is exercising jurisdiction over 

the case and sets a briefing schedule for the case. Therefore, petitioner’s motion is moot. 

Second, petitioner moved to recuse the California Attorney General’s Office from the instant case

and to stay all proceedings pending adjudication of the motion. ECF No. 18. Petitioner argues 

that the state attorney general’s involvement in his state level habeas proceedings presented a 

conflict of interest. Id. at 3-4. However, the state attorney general has not entered an appearance 

in this case. To the extent petitioner seeks recusal of respondents in his state level case, he should 

seek relief in state court. Therefore, we deny petitioner’s motion. Third, petitioner submitted a 

motion to correct an error in the electronic version of his petition, which was uploaded to this 

court’s electronic filing system. ECF No. 19. Two pages of the petition were inadvertently 

overlapped. Id. The clerk of the court has corrected this error. See ECF No. 1 at 72-73. 

Therefore, petitioner’s motion is dismissed as moot.

Order

1. Within sixty days of the date of service of this order, respondent must file a 

response to the petition. 

2. A response may be one of the following: 

A. An answer addressing the merits of the petition. Any argument by 

respondent that petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim must be raised 

in the answer, which must also address the merits of petitioner’s claims. 

B. A motion to dismiss the petition. 

Case 1:18-cv-01154-AWI-HBK Document 21 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. Within sixty days of the date of service of this order, respondent must file all 

transcripts and other documents necessary for resolving the issues presented in the 

petition. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 5(c). 

4. If respondent files an answer to the petition, petitioner may file a traverse within 

thirty days of the date of service of respondent’s answer. If no traverse is filed 

within thirty days, the petition and answer are deemed submitted.

5. If respondent moves to dismiss, petitioner must file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition within twenty-one days of the date of service of respondent’s 

motion. Any reply to an opposition to the motion to dismiss must be filed within 

seven days after the opposition is served. The motion to dismiss will be 

considered submitted twenty-eight days after the service of the motion or when the 

reply is filed, whichever comes first. See Local Rule 230(l).

6. Respondent must complete and return to the court within thirty days a form stating 

whether respondent consents or declines to consent to the jurisdiction of a United 

States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

7. Petitioner’s motion for clarification is dismissed as moot. ECF No. 16.

8. Petitioner’s motion for recusal and to stay proceedings is denied. ECF No. 18.

9. Petitioner’s motion for correction is dismissed as moot. ECF No. 19.

The clerk of the court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the state attorney general 

or the attorney general’s representative.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:18-cv-01154-AWI-HBK Document 21 Filed 01/28/20 Page 3 of 3