Nwaonumah v. Spearman
Filing
29
ORDER REOPENING ACTION; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE granting 28 MOTION. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent's counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. Habeas Answer/Dispositive Motion due by 2/20/2018. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 12/7/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
DAVID A. NWAONUMAH,
Petitioner,
8
9
10
v.
ORDER REOPENING ACTION;
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
M. E. SPEARMAN,
Respondent.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 15-cv-04196-WHO (PR)
Dkt. No. 28
12
INTRODUCTION
13
14
This federal habeas action was stayed at petitioner Nwaonumah’s request so that he
15
could exhaust his state court remedies. Nwaonumah now moves to lift the stay on grounds
16
that he has exhausted his claims. (Dkt. No. 28.) The motion is GRANTED, the stay is
17
LIFTED, and the action is REOPENED. The Clerk is directed to modify the docket
18
accordingly.
19
Nwaonumah seeks federal habeas relief from a state prison disciplinary decision.
20
The petition for such relief has been reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the
21
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and has been found to state cognizable claims.
22
Accordingly, on or before February 20, 2018, respondent shall file an answer or
23
dispositive motion in response to the habeas petition.
24
25
BACKGROUND
Nwaonumah filed this habeas action to challenge the loss of credits he suffered as
26
the result of a prison disciplinary decision at Soledad State Prison in 2013. In response to
27
the petition, the Court issued an order to show cause. Respondent then moved to dismiss
28
the petition as unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. The Court agreed that the petition
1
was not exhausted, and, at Nwaonumah’s request, stayed the petition so that he could
2
exhaust his state court remedies. The Court did not address respondent’s procedural
3
default contentions.
4
5
DISCUSSION
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person
6
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in
7
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
8
§ 2254(a). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall
9
“award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ
should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate
12
only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or
13
patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
14
As grounds for federal habeas relief, Nwaonumah alleges respondent violated his
15
right to due process when it found him guilty under the “some evidence” rather than the
16
preponderance standard. He alleges the state courts erred in applying the “some evidence”
17
standard as well. When liberally construed, this claim is cognizable on federal habeas
18
review. Because the Court has not yet addressed respondent’s procedural default
19
contentions, respondent is free to raise them again.
20
CONCLUSION
21
1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments
22
thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the State of
23
California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.
24
2. On or before February 19, 2018, respondent shall file with the Court and serve
25
on petitioner, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing
26
Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted
27
based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve
28
on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have been
2
1
2
transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse
3
with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the
4
answer is filed.
5
4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, on or before February 19, 2018, a
motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to
7
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion,
8
petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of
9
non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall
10
file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
opposition is filed.
12
13
14
5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on
respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel.
6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the
15
Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the
16
Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this
17
action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
18
19
7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will
be granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.
20
8. Petitioner’s motion to reopen (Dkt. No. 28) is GRANTED.
21
9. The Clerk shall terminate Dkt. No. 28.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated: December 7, 2017
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?