Terhune v. State of California

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING Respondent's 14 Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice; ORDER REQUIRING Respondent to File a Response; ORDER SETTING Briefing Schedule signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/26/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CAMERON TERHUNE,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

v.
JOE LIZARRAGA,
Respondent.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00585-DAD-JLT (HC)
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO FILE A
RESPONSE
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

In this motion, Respondent argues the petition should be dismissed based on a violation of the

18

statute of limitations. Petitioner opposes the motion and claims he is entitled to tolling based on his

19

mental impairment. In his reply, Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s opposition and his claims of

20

mental health impairment and requests that the limitations issue be bypassed, without waiving the

21

defense, because resolution of the timeliness issue could require an evidentiary hearing, documentary

22

exhibits, and possibly mental health expert testimony. Respondent argues that judicial economy

23

would be best served if the Court skipped over the relatively complicated limitations issue and proceed

24

directly to resolution of the merits.

25

A district court is not required to rule on a limitations defense if the habeas petition may be

26

denied on simpler grounds. Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 525 (1997); see, e.g., Curtis v.

27

Giurbino, 2:01-cv-1562-GEB-DAD-P. The Court agrees that the limitations issue is potentially

28

complicated and may entail a substantial amount of time and resources. In addition, it is very possible
1

1

that the limitations defense could be rejected and the case would then proceed to the merits.

2

Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court finds that the action should proceed directly to

3

the merits. Respondent’s motion will be denied without prejudice and without waiving Respondent’s

4

limitations defense.
ORDER

5
6

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

7

1)

Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED without prejudice;

8

2)

Respondent is DIRECTED to file an Answer addressing the merits of the Petition

9

within 60 days of the date of service of this order. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254

10

Cases; Cluchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1473-1474 (9th Cir. 1985) (court has discretion to

11

fix time for filing a response). Respondent SHALL INCLUDE with the Answer any and all

12

transcripts or other documents necessary for the resolution of the issues presented in the

13

Petition. See Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Any argument by Respondent that

14

Petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim SHALL BE MADE in the ANSWER, but must

15

also address the merits of the claim asserted.

16

3)

17

filed with the Court. If no Traverse is filed, the Petition and Answer are deemed submitted at

18

the expiration of the thirty days.

19

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

Petitioner MAY FILE a Traverse within 30 days of the date Respondent’s Answer is

20

otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 230(l). Extensions of time will only be granted upon a

21

showing of good cause. All provisions of Local Rule 110 are applicable to this order.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 26, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

2