Coleman v. Hennessy

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting 12 Petitioner's Motion to Shorten Time. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DARIUS COLEMAN,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

v.
VICKI HENNESSY,

Docket No. 12

Respondent.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Case No. 17-cv-06503-EMC

13

Petitioner Darius Coleman has filed a petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

14

2241. According to Mr. Coleman, his constitutional rights have been violated because a state

15

court “imposed a de facto order of pretrial detention by requiring a $200,000 secured financial

16

condition of release that was [financially] unattainable for [him]” and the state court failed to

17

“make the substantive findings or provide the rigorous procedures required for a valid order of

18

pretrial detention.” Pet. ¶ 3.

19

Previously, Judge Laporte (the then-assigned judge) ordered Respondent Vicki Hennessy

20

to show cause as to why Mr. Coleman’s habeas petition should not be granted. See Docket No. 5

21

(Order at 2). Judge Laporte, however, set an extended briefing schedule – 60 days for the answer

22

and 30 days for the traverse. Mr. Coleman subsequently moved to shorten time, noting, inter alia,

23

that that timeframe is used for § 2254 petitions, not necessarily § 2241 petitions, and that, in any

24

event, there is an interest in having his petition ruled on in a timely fashion given the issue raised.

25

Although Ms. Hennessy indicated to Mr. Coleman that she opposed shortened time, she did not

26

file a written opposition. Upon inquiry from Court staff, Ms. Hennessy confirmed that she would

27

not be filing a written opposition.

28

In light of the failure to file a written opposition, as well as the interest raised by Mr.

1

Coleman, the Court GRANTS the motion to shorten time. Ms. Hennessy shall have until

2

December 7, 2017, to file an answer to the habeas petition. Mr. Coleman shall have until

3

December 12, 2017, to file a traverse. The parties are advised to consider Judge Breyer’s recent

4

ruling in Reem v. Hennessy, No. C-17-6628 CRB (Docket No. 8).

5

Because Ms. Hennessy has not made a formal appearance in this case as of yet, the Court

6

orders Mr. Coleman to serve a copy of this order by mail on the California Attorney General’s

7

Office within one day of the date of this order. In addition, within one day of the date of this

8

order, Mr. Coleman shall serve a courtesy copy by email on Katie Stowe of the California

9

Attorney General’s Office. The Court understands from Mr. Coleman that Ms. Stowe is the

they should likewise be given notice of this order via email. Within two days of the date of this

12
For the Northern District of California

appropriate contact person at the Attorney General’s Office but, if there are additional attorneys,

11

United States District Court

10

order, Mr. Coleman shall file a declaration, certifying compliance with this order.

13

This order disposes of Docket No. 12.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18
19

Dated: November 29, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2