Maki v. Hartley
ORDER DISMISSING UNEXHAUSTED CLAIM AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE : Respondent's answer is due 5/27/11, petitioner's optional traverse is due 7/1/11. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/12/2011: # 1 Envelope) (tf, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/13/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RICHARD TRAVIS MAKI,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
No. C 09-5082 SI (pr)
UNEXHAUSTED CLAIM AND
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
JAMES D. HARTLEY, warden,
Richard Travis Maki filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. The court ordered respondent to show cause why the petition should not be
granted on three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Respondent moved to dismiss on
the ground that state court remedies had not been exhausted for one of the three claims. The
court granted the motion, finding that state court remedies were not exhausted for one of the
claims and ordering petitioner to choose how to deal with this problem no later than January 14,
2011. See Order For Petitioner To Make Election Regarding Unexhausted Claim, p. 5.
Petitioner was informed that, if he did not choose one of the available options, the court would
dismiss the unexhausted claim. Id. Petitioner filed no response to the order and the deadline by
which to do so has long passed. In light of the foregoing and to move this action toward
/ / /
Petitioner's claim that his counsel provided ineffective assistance in that he did not
call petitioner's son to testify is DISMISSED. The two remaining ineffective assistance of
counsel claims warrant a response from respondent.
Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before May 27, 2011, 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 issued. Respondent must file with the
answer a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and
that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse
with the court and serving it on respondent on or before July 1, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 12, 2011
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?