Maki v. Hartley

Filing 10

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).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RICHARD TRAVIS MAKI, 10 Petitioner, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 No. C 09-5082 SI (pr) ORDER DISMISSING UNEXHAUSTED CLAIM AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE v. JAMES D. HARTLEY, warden, 13 Respondent. / 14 15 Richard Travis Maki filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 16 U.S.C. ยง 2254. The court ordered respondent to show cause why the petition should not be 17 granted on three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Respondent moved to dismiss on 18 the ground that state court remedies had not been exhausted for one of the three claims. The 19 court granted the motion, finding that state court remedies were not exhausted for one of the 20 claims and ordering petitioner to choose how to deal with this problem no later than January 14, 21 2011. See Order For Petitioner To Make Election Regarding Unexhausted Claim, p. 5. 22 Petitioner was informed that, if he did not choose one of the available options, the court would 23 dismiss the unexhausted claim. Id. Petitioner filed no response to the order and the deadline by 24 which to do so has long passed. In light of the foregoing and to move this action toward 25 resolution: 26 / / / 27 / / 28 / 1 1. Petitioner's claim that his counsel provided ineffective assistance in that he did not 2 call petitioner's son to testify is DISMISSED. The two remaining ineffective assistance of 3 counsel claims warrant a response from respondent. 4 2. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before May 27, 2011, an 5 answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 6 showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent must file with the 7 answer a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and 8 that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 9 10 11 12 3. 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 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?