Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00008/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00008-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Ray Ritchie
Petitioner
R. Zuniga
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN RAY RITCHIE,

Petitioner,

v.

R. ZUNIGA, WARDEN, et al.,

Respondents.

No. 2:15-cv-0008 KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner is a federal prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On June 29, 2015, petitioner 

filed a motion styled “Motion for Court Intervention. . .,” in which petitioner claims respondents 

have failed to file a responsive pleading. Petitioner contends that he has now completed the 

Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”), and contends he would have been released from 

custody on June 1, 2015, had prison officials applied the Arrington1rule when petitioner first 

applied for the RDAP. Petitioner asks the court to grant his petition based on respondents’ 

alleged default.

On July 1, 2015, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion, noting that they filed a 

motion to dismiss on May 15, 2015, and served petitioner with a copy of such filing on that same

////

 

1

 Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2007) (Bureau of Prisons rule precluding RDAP 

sentence credit for inmates convicted of a firearms offense found to be procedurally invalid).

Case 2:15-cv-00008-KJN Document 20 Filed 07/16/15 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

day. (ECF No. 19 at 1.) Nevertheless, on July 1, 2015, respondents mailed petitioner a second 

copy of the May 15, 2015 motion to dismiss by certified mail, return receipt requested. 

Court records confirm that the May 15, 2015 motion to dismiss was accompanied by a 

certificate of service attesting to service on petitioner. However, because it appears that petitioner 

did not receive the filing, petitioner is granted an extension of time in which to file his opposition. 

Because respondents timely-filed their motion, petitioner’s motion for default is denied. 

Petitioner seeks to expedite resolution of this case, but the court cannot rule on the 

pending motion to dismiss until it is fully briefed. In any event, the pendency of this action does 

not preclude petitioner from applying for the Arrington credit now that he has completed the 

treatment program. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for default (ECF No. 18) is denied; and

2. Petitioner is granted twenty-one days from July 1, 2015, in which to file an opposition 

to the May 15, 2015 motion to dismiss; respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed seven days 

thereafter.

Dated: July 16, 2015

ritc0008.fb

Case 2:15-cv-00008-KJN Document 20 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 2