Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01406/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01406-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Price
Respondent
Joseph Lee Ward
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH LEE WARD,

Petitioner,

v.

J. PRICE,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-1406 JAM KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 8, 2016, the undersigned recommended that this 

action be dismissed based on petitioner’s failure to pay the filing fee. On September 16, 2016, 

petitioner paid the filing fee, and on September 26, 2016, petitioner filed objections. Good cause 

appearing, the findings and recommendations are vacated.

Here, petitioner challenges the denial of parole on due process grounds. Petitioner argues, 

inter alia, that he and his attorney were not provided prior notice that confidential information 

would be used against him at the parole hearing. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 

(2011) (“Cooke and Clay received at least this amount of process: They were allowed to speak at 

their parole hearings and to contest the evidence against them, were afforded access to their 

records in advance, and were notified as to the reasons why parole was denied.”) (emphasis 

added). Further, petitioner contends that there was no showing that the confidential information 

Case 2:16-cv-01406-JAM-KJN Document 8 Filed 10/11/16 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

was reliable; petitioner appears to contend that the confidential information could have been 

provided to his staff assistant or his lawyer for review prior to the parole hearing. (ECF No. 1 at 

20.) 

Because petitioner may be entitled to relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights 

is proved, respondent will be directed to file a response to petitioner’s habeas petition.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The September 8, 2016 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 6) are vacated; 

2. Respondent is directed to file a response to petitioner’s habeas petition within sixty 

days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. An answer shall be 

accompanied by all transcripts and other documents relevant to the issues presented in the 

petition. See Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254;

3. If the response to the habeas petition is an answer, petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be 

filed and served within thirty days after service of the answer;

4. If the response to the habeas petition is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or statement 

of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty days after service of the

motion, and respondent’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within fourteen days thereafter; 

and

5. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order, the form Consent to Proceed 

Before a United States Magistrate Judge, and a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Dated: October 11, 2016

/ward1406.100fee

Case 2:16-cv-01406-JAM-KJN Document 8 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 2