Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00352/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00352-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wanda Brown
Petitioner
Debra Patrick
Respondent

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WANDA BROWN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

DEBRA PATRICK, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00352 LJO NEW (DLB) HC 

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

AMENDED PETITION DUE JULY 20, 2007

ANSWER DUE WITHIN 90 DAYS THEREAFTER,

TRAVERSE DUE 30 DAYS THEREAFTER; 

OR MOTION TO DISMISS, DUE WITHIN 60 DAYS

AFTER AMENDED PETITION, OPPOSITION DUE

18 DAYS THEREAFTER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented in this action by Erin C. Smith, Esq., and Margaret G.

May, Esq., of Covington & Burling. Respondent is represented in this action by Robert C. Cross,

Esq., of the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California.

Pursuant to stipulation of the parties dated May 18, 2007, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Petitioner SHALL FILE AND SERVE an amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on

or before July 20, 2007;

2) Respondent SHALL FILE a RESPONSE. A Response can be made by filing one of the

following: 

Case 1:07-cv-00352-LJO-GSA Document 12 Filed 05/22/07 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

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that upon the court’s determination that summary 1

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 (9 Cir.1989) (providing that Motions to Dismiss pursuant th

to Rule 4 are proper in a federal habeas proceeding.) 

Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties must seek leave of court before submitting 2

any pleading not contemplated by this Order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e).

A. AN ANSWER addressing the merits of the Amended Petition and due within

NINETY (90) days of the date of filing of the Amended Petition.

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 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 (8 Cir. 1995) (the answer to the th

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.

B. A MOTION TO DISMISS due within SIXTY(60) days of the date of filing of the

amended petition based on the following grounds: 

1,2

(1) 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

Case 1:07-cv-00352-LJO-GSA Document 12 Filed 05/22/07 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

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

(2) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). A Motion to Dismiss

the Petition as filed beyond the one year limitations period SHALL INCLUDE

copies of all Petitioner’s state court filings and dispositive rulings. 

(3) 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.

2. 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. 

3. Respondent SHALL COMPLETE and RETURN to the Court along with the Response

or Motion to Dismiss, a Consent form indicating whether she 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).

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: May 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00352-LJO-GSA Document 12 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 3