Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01331/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01331-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricky Edward King
Petitioner
David B. Long
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

RICKY EDWARD KING,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID B. LONG, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-1331 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with an application for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 22, 2015, respondent filed a motion to 

dismiss on the grounds that this action is barred by the one-year statute of limitations, and 

petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies. On October 27, 2015, petitioner was ordered 

to show cause why his failure to oppose the motion to dismiss should not be deemed a waiver of 

any opposition to the granting of the motion. However, on October 27, 2015, petitioner’s October 

26, 2015 opposition was entered on the court docket. On November 5, 2015, petitioner filed a 

response to the order to show cause and provided a copy of his opposition.

The certificate of service appended to petitioner’s opposition is signed October 22, 2015. 

Under the mailbox rule, the opposition was filed as of October 22, 2015. Huizar v. Carey, 273 

F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 2001) (Under the mailbox rule, a prisoner’s pro se habeas petition is 

“deemed filed when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing to the relevant court.”); 

Case 2:15-cv-01331-TLN-KJN Document 25 Filed 01/27/16 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

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). However, Local Rule 230(l) provides that 

oppositions to motions shall be filed within twenty-one days. Id. Because the motion to dismiss 

was filed on September 22, 2015, petitioner’s opposition was due on or before October 13, 2015. 

Thus, petitioner’s opposition was untimely filed.

However, in light of the court’s preference to resolve motions on the merits, the court will 

consider petitioner’s opposition, and provides respondent an opportunity to file a reply.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause (ECF No. 19) is discharged;

2. The court will consider petitioner’s October 26, 2015 opposition to the motion to 

dismiss (ECF No. 20); and

3. Respondent shall file a reply, if any, within seven days from the date of this order.

Dated: January 27, 2016

/king1331.rep

Case 2:15-cv-01331-TLN-KJN Document 25 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 2