Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01558/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01558-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fred Folk
Respondent
Ricky Rene Sanders
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY RENE SANDERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRED FOLK,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-01558-SI 

ORDER

A. Petitioner’s Filing

Petitioner filed a document labelled “amended petition” on April 30, 2019. Docket No. 24. 

The “amended petition” filed on April 30, 2019, is STRICKEN because it was not accompanied by 

a motion for leave to file an amended petition. The document also fails to do the fundamental chore 

of setting out a petitioner’s grounds for relief because it consists primarily of legal argument with 

numerous bullet point ideas and omits almost a dozen claims contained in the earlier amended 

petition (Docket No. 16). The operative pleading from petitioner remains the amended petition filed 

on September 5, 2018 (Docket No. 16). 

In an April 15, 2019 order, the court expressed concerns about petitioner’s efforts to blend 

together his claims about his San Mateo County Superior Court conviction (i.e., the conviction under 

attack in this action) and his Santa Clara County Superior Court conviction that occurred several 

years later. The “amended petition” filed on April 30, 2019 continues to try to confuse the issues 

with information about the Santa Clara County Superior Court conviction. Again, petitioner must 

file a new action to challenge the Santa Clara County Superior Court conviction. He should not file 

that new action until after he exhausts state court remedies for any claim he wishes to present in his

federal petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Case 3:18-cv-01558-SI Document 25 Filed 05/20/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

If petitioner has legal arguments he wants to make about the claims in his amended petition 

(Docket No. 16), the place to make those arguments is in his traverse, rather than in a series of 

miscellaneous filings in the court. That traverse is not due until after respondent files an answer to 

the order to show cause. Any legal argument not contained in the traverse will be disregarded.

If petitioner wants to file a second amended petition, he may do so but must file a motion 

for leave to amend with the proposed second amended petition, explaining why a second amended 

petition should be permitted. He is cautioned that a second amended petition will supersede the 

amended petition (Docket No. 16) and any claim not contained in the second amended petition will 

be dismissed. 

B. Scheduling

Due to an oversight at the courthouse, the amended petition and order to show cause were 

not served on Respondent or his counsel. To move this case forward toward resolution, the court 

now orders:

1. The clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the order to show cause, the 

amended petition, and all attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the 

Attorney General of the State of California. 

2. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before July 26, 2019, 

an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing 

cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent must file with the answer a 

copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and that are 

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a 

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent on or before August 23, 2019. 

Case 3:18-cv-01558-SI Document 25 Filed 05/20/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

If respondent files a motion to dismiss instead of an answer to the petition, the same briefing 

schedule will apply. That is, the motion must be filed and served on or before July 26, 2019, and 

the opposition must be filed and served on or before August 23, 2019. Any reply by respondent 

must be filed on or before September 6, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01558-SI Document 25 Filed 05/20/19 Page 3 of 3