Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05548/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05548-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derrel Adams
Respondent
Gabriel Santiago
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 -1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL SANTIAGO,

Petitioner, No. 03-CIV-5548 ALA HC

vs.

DERREL ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

____________________________/

Petitioner Gabriel Santiago is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 20, 2003 the Court issued an order,

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, directing Respondent to file

either an answer to Mr. Santiago’s petition or a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 9). In

response to that order, Respondent filed a document on August 18, 2003, entitled “Answer to

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” (Doc. 13.) Although titled as an “Answer,” the document

urges that “[Mr. Santiago’s] petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be denied.” Id. at 20; see

Case 1:03-cv-05548-ALA Document 24 Filed 08/23/07 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 -2-

also id. at 3 (“Respondent respectfully submits that the petition for writ of habeas corpus must be

dismissed.”) It also contains a section entitled “Memorandum of Points and Authorities . . .” in

which Respondent sets forth substantive arguments on the merits of Petitioner’s claims. 

The document Respondent filed on August 18, 2003 appears to be neither an answer nor

a motion to dismiss. An answer is not a proper vehicle by which to seek dismissal. Respondent

should instead have requested dismissal by filing a motion to dismiss, which is a proper motion

in a § 2254 proceeding. White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989).

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent shall file a properly-titled motion to dismiss, setting forth the arguments

contained in Respondent’s “Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” on or before

October 10, 2007; 

2. Petitioner shall file a response to Respondent’s motion to dismiss on or before

October 31, 2007; and,

3. Respondent shall file a reply in support of its motion to dismiss on or before

November 14, 2007.

DATED: August 21, 2007

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:03-cv-05548-ALA Document 24 Filed 08/23/07 Page 2 of 2