Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01226/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01226-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ken Clark
Respondent
Victor Moraza
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

 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR MORAZA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

KEN CLARK, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-01226-LJO-TAG HC

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO

FILE RESPONSE TO AMENDED PETITION

(Doc. 9)

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SERVE DOCUMENTS 

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE DATED JANUARY 24, 2008

(Doc. 15)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 23, 2007, Petitioner filed a Request for Equitable Tolling

and to File Late Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus For a Person in State Custody in the Sacramento

Division of this Court. (Doc. 1). The Clerk of Court interpreted the request as a petition for writ of

habeas corpus and opened a case based upon that filing. On June 19, 2007, the Court ordered

Petitioner to file a new petition within thirty days. (Doc. 8). On July 19, 2007, Petitioner filed the

instant amended petition. (Doc. 9). On August 23, 2007, the case was transferred to the Fresno

Division and assigned to this Court. (Doc. 10). The Court conducted a preliminary review of the

petition, determined that was untimely and therefore should be dismissed, but issued an order to

show cause on January 24, 2008, that afforded Petitioner an opportunity to provide additional

information and evidence regarding the issue of timeliness. (Doc. 15). On February 21, 2008,

Petitioner filed his response to the order to show cause. (Doc. 16). 

Case 1:07-cv-01226-LJO-TAG Document 17 Filed 06/26/08 Page 1 of 4
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

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are “applicable to habeas corpus proceedings to the extent that the practice 1

in such proceedings are not set forth in the statutes of the United States and has heretofore conformed to the practice of civil

actions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(2). Rule 11 also provides “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not

inconsistent with these rules, may be applied, when appropriate, to the petitions filed under these rules.” Rule 11, Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

 2

DISCUSSION

The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the amended petition. It appears to the

Court that the amended petition is untimely by sixty-two days and should be dismissed. However,

Petitioner has alleged in his response to the order to show cause that his attorney filed a state habeas

petition on August 2, 2005 that was denied at some point in 2006. (Doc. 16, Exh. C, p. 3). The

petition is untimely by two months; hence, it is conceivable that, if Petitioner’s allegation of a

properly filed state petition is accurate, Petitioner may be entitled to statutory tolling of sufficient

length to make the petition timely. However, the Court is unable to draw that conclusion based on

the scant facts currently available to the Court. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court 1

HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The order to show cause dated January 24, 2008 (Doc. 15), is DISCHARGED; and

2. Respondent SHALL FILE a RESPONSE TO THE AMENDED PETITION. A

response can be made by filing one of the following: 

A. AN ANSWER addressing the merits of the amended petition and due within

NINETY (90) days of the date of service of this order. Rule 4, Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases; Cluchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1473-

1474 (9 Cir. 1985) (court has discretion to fix time for filing an Answer.). th

S Respondent SHALL INCLUDE with the answer any and all transcripts

or other documents necessary for the resolution of the issues presented

in the amended petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases.

S Any argument by Respondent that Petitioner has procedurally

defaulted a claim(s) SHALL BE MADE in an ANSWER that also

addresses the merits of the claims asserted. This is to enable the Court

Case 1:07-cv-01226-LJO-TAG Document 17 Filed 06/26/08 Page 2 of 4
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

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that upon the court’s determination that summary 2

dismissal is inappropriate, the “judge shall order the respondent to file an answer or other pleading . . . or to take such other

action as the judge deems appropriate.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (emphasis added); see, also, Advisory

Committee Notes to Rule 4 and 5 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (stating that a dismissal may obviate the need for

filing an answer on the substantive merits of the petition and that the Attorney General may file a Motion to Dismiss for

failure to exhaust.); also, White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 60203 (9 Cir.1989) (providing that Motions to Dismiss pursuant th

to Rule 4 are proper in a federal habeas proceeding.) 

 3

to determine whether Petitioner meets an exception to procedural

default. See, Paradis v. Arave, 130 F.3d 385, 396 (9 Cir. 1997) th

(Procedurally defaulted claims may be reviewed on the merits to serve

the ends of justice); Jones v. Delo, 56 F.3d 878 (8 Cir. 1995) (the th

answer to the question that it is more likely than not that no reasonable

juror fairly considering all the evidence, including the new evidence,

would have found Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

necessarily requires a review of the merits). 

S Petitioner’s TRAVERSE, if any, is due THIRTY (30) days from the

date Respondent’s answer is filed with the Court.

B. A MOTION TO DISMISS due within SIXTY(60) days of the date of service

of this order based on the following grounds: 

2

i. EXHAUSTION - 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A motion to dismiss for

Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies SHALL INCLUDE

copies of all the Petitioner’s state court filings and dispositive rulings

so as to allow the Court to examine the limitations issue. See, Ford v.

Hubbard, 305 F.3d 875 (9 Cir. 2002); Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 th

(9 Cir. 2003); th

ii. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). A motion to

dismiss the amended petition as filed beyond the one year limitations

period SHALL INCLUDE copies of all Petitioner’s state court filings

and dispositive rulings. 

iii. SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE Petitions - 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). A

motion to dismiss the amended petition on the basis of § 2244(b)

Case 1:07-cv-01226-LJO-TAG Document 17 Filed 06/26/08 Page 3 of 4
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

 4

SHALL include a copy of the previously filed federal petition and

disposition thereof.

3. OPPOSITIONS to motions to dismiss SHALL be served and filed within EIGHTEEN

(18) days, plus three days for mailing. All other oppositions SHALL be served and

filed within EIGHT (8) days, plus three days for mailing. REPLIES to oppositions to

motions to dismiss SHALL be served and filed within eight (8) days, plus three days

for mailing. Replies to oppositions to all other motions SHALL be served and filed

within eight (8) days, plus three days for mailing. If no opposition is filed, all

motions are deemed submitted at the expiration of the opposition period. 

4. Unless already submitted, both Respondent and Petitioner SHALL COMPLETE and

RETURN to the Court along with the response or motion to dismiss, a Consent form

indicating whether the party consents or declines to consent to the jurisdiction of a the

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

5. RESPONDENT SHALL submit a Notice of Appearance as attorney of record within

SIXTY (60) days of the date of service of this order for purposes of service of court

orders. See, Local Rule 83-182(a), 5-135(c). 

6. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to SERVE a copy of this order along with a

copy of the AMENDED PETITION (Doc. 9), and any exhibits/attachments, on the

Attorney General or his representative. 

All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless

otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 78-230(h). All provisions of Local Rule 11-110 are

applicable to this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-01226-LJO-TAG Document 17 Filed 06/26/08 Page 4 of 4