Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05231/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05231-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tom L. Carey
Respondent
Ronald Edward West
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD EDWARD WEST, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

TOM L. CAREY, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:03-cv-05231-AWI-TAG HC 

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO FILE

RESPONSE

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SERVE DOCUMENTS 

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed his Petition on January 31, 2003, in the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California. The Petition was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court

for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, and received on February 24, 2003. On

March 24, 2003, Petitioner was directed to file an amended petition (Doc. 3); Petitioner filed the

amended Petition on April 24, 2003. (Doc. 4). On May 20, 2003, the Court ordered Respondent to

file an answer or, in the alternative, a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 5).

On August 7, 2003, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Petitioner had

filed his Petition beyond the one-year statute of limitations provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

Case 1:03-cv-05231-LJO-TAG Document 32 Filed 12/15/05 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

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

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. 

(Doc. 8). On November 12, 2003, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation that the motion

to dismiss be granted and that the amended Petition be dismissed as untimely under § 2244(d). 

(Doc. 13). On January 23, 2004, the District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. 15). On July 27, 2004, Petitioner filed his notice of appeal in the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 19). On June 8, 2005, the Ninth Circuit issued its

opinion, reversing the District Court’s judgment and holding that Petitioner’s original Petition had

been timely filed. (Doc. 28). On December 6, 2005, the matter was referred back to the Magistrate

Judge for further proceedings. (Doc. 30).

The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the amended Petition. Accordingly,

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure,1 the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Respondent SHALL FILE a RESPONSE. A Response can be made by filing one of the

following: 

A. AN ANSWER addressing the merits of the 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 (9th Cir. 1985) (court has

discretion to fix time for filing an Answer.).

S Respondent SHALL INCLUDE with the Answer any and all transcripts or other

documents necessary for the resolution of the issues presented in the 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 to determine whether Petitioner meets

an exception to procedural default. See, Paradis v. Arave, 130 F.3d 385, 396 (9th

Case 1:03-cv-05231-LJO-TAG Document 32 Filed 12/15/05 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

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

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 (9th Cir.1989) (providing that Motions to Dismiss pursuant

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

Cir. 1997) (Procedurally defaulted claims may be reviewed on the merits to serve

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

merits necessarily required to determine whether it is more likely than not that no

reasonable juror fairly considering all the evidence would have found Petitioner

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). 

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 

(1) 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 (9th Cir.

2002); Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003); 

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

Dismiss the Petition on the basis of § 2244(b) SHALL include a copy of the

previously filed federal Petition and disposition thereof.

2. 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

Case 1:03-cv-05231-LJO-TAG Document 32 Filed 12/15/05 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

submitted at the expiration of the opposition period. 

3. 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).

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

of the amended PETITION 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: December 14, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05231-LJO-TAG Document 32 Filed 12/15/05 Page 4 of 4