Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01876/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01876-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Neuschmid
Respondent
Prince F. Tsetse
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRINCE F. TSETSE,

Petitioner,

 v.

ROBERT NEUSCHMID,

Respondent. /

No. C 18-1876 WHA (PR) 

ORDER LIFTING STAY;

REOPENING CASE; TO SHOW

CAUSE; 

(Dkt. No. 34)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this habeas petition under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction in state court. Petitioner timely filed an amended

petition claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, which claim was

exhausted. Respondent answered and petitioner filed a traverse. Petitioner was granted a stay

to exhaust two additional claims. He indicates that he has done so, and he has filed a second

amended petition containing the original claim and the two new claims. Good cause appearing,

the stay is LIFTED, the case is administratively REOPENED, and respondent is ordered to show

cause why a petition should not be granted based upon the three claims in the second amended

petition. 

It is hereby ordered as follows:

1. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty-three (63)

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

granted based on the three claim in the second amended petition. In doing so, respondent shall

file a new answer with a supporting memorandum that either replaces or supplements the

memorandum supporting the original answer. Respondent need not file new copies of

previously submitted exhibits. 

Case 3:18-cv-01876-WHA Document 48 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, she shall do so by filing a traverse with the

court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight days of the date the answer is filed. 

Petitioner shall indicate whether the traverse supplements or replaces the previously-filed

traverse. 

2. Respondent may file, within sixty-three (63) days, 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 within

twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and

serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of the date any opposition is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4 , 2020. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-01876-WHA Document 48 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 2