Duesler v. Curry et al

Filing 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, Motions terminated: 9 MOTION for Consent to Magistrate Judge filed by Robert Laingen Duesler, II, 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed by Robert Laingen Duesler, II.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 4/23/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. BEN CURRY, Warden, et al., Respondents. / ROBERT LAINGEN DUESLER, II, Petitioner, No. C 09-04219 SBA (PR) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ADDRESSING PETITIONER'S PENDING MOTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. It does not appear from the face of the petition that it is without merit. Good cause appearing, the Court hereby issues the following orders: 1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order and the petition and all attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner at his current address. 2. Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, within one-hundred and twenty (120) days of the issuance of this Order, 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 shall file with the Answer a copy of all portions of the relevant state records that have been transcribed previously 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 with the Court and serving it on Respondent within sixty (60) days of his receipt of the Answer. Should 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision sixty (60) days after the date Petitioner is served with Respondent's Answer. 4. Respondent may file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Order, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an Answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion within sixty (60) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition. 5. It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court and Respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Petitioner must also serve on Respondent's counsel all communications with the Court by mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent's counsel. 6. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than ten (10) days prior to the deadline sought to be extended. 7. Petitioner's "Motion for Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction" (docket no. 9) is DENIED pursuant to Revised General Order 44, which states: "[t]he full time magistrate judges of this District shall be included in the civil case assignment system in the same manner as active district judges, expect for prisoner petitions not filed by prisoners who have filed previous actions pursuant to Sec. D7 [relating to habeas corpus petitions] . . . ." 8. Petitioner's "Motion for Consent to Respondent's Request for Extension" (docket no. 10) is DENIED as unnecessary because Respondent has not made such a request. 9. This Order terminates Docket nos. 9 and 10. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 4/23/10 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT LAINGEN DUESLER II, Plaintiff, v. BEN CURRY et al, Defendant. / Case Number: CV09-04219 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on April 26, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Robert Laingen Duesler D-43799 P.O. Box 8101 A-1208 San Luis Obispo, CA 93409-8101 Dated: April 26, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.09\Duesler4219.OSC.wpd 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?