Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00784/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00784-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lawrence George Hash
Petitioner
Kelly Santoro
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE GEORGE HASH,

Petitioner,

v.

KELLY SANTORO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-00784-YGR (PR)

ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS AND DIRECTING 

RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT 

BE GRANTED

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a June 23, 2016 disciplinary hearing at San Quentin State Prison. 

Dkt. 1-1 at 12. Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 10.

It does not appear from the face of the petition that it is without merit. Good cause 

appearing, the Court hereby issues the following orders:

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. 10. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order and the petition and all at 

attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the 

State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner at his current 

address.

3. Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, within sixty (60) 

days of the issuance of this Order, 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 shall file with the Answer a copy of all portions of the relevant state records that have 

been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the 

petition.

4. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse 

with the Court and serving it on Respondent within sixty (60) days of his receipt of the Answer. 

Should Petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision sixty 

Case 4:19-cv-00784-YGR Document 13 Filed 07/24/19 Page 1 of 2
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

days after the date Petitioner is served with Respondent’s Answer. 

5. Respondent may file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, within sixty (60)

days of the issuance of this Order, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 

Answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on 

Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion within sixty (60) days of 

receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply 

within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition.

6. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and Respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s 

orders in a timely fashion. Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro 

se whose address changes while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of 

address specifying the new address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss a pro se action 

without prejudice when: (1) mail directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the 

Court as not deliverable, and (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written 

communication from the pro se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b); see also 

Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

Petitioner must also serve on Respondent’s counsel all communications with the Court by mailing 

a true copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel.

7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

8. This Order terminates Docket No. 10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

July 24, 2019

Case 4:19-cv-00784-YGR Document 13 Filed 07/24/19 Page 2 of 2