Quinonez v. Harrington

Filing 18

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 5/25/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2011)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AS TO
PETITIONER'S ELEVEN EXHAUSTED
CLAIMS

Petitioner,
v.
HARRINGTON, Warden,
Respondent.

12
13

No. C 09-04272 SBA (PR)

RAYMOND-CARLOS QUINONEZ,

/

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

14

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state conviction. His original petition

15

alleged a total of twenty-two claims. The Court ordered Respondent to show cause why the petition

16

should not be granted. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as not fully exhausted.

17

Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion, and Respondent filed a reply.

18

In an Order dated March 31, 2011, the Court granted the motion to dismiss and ordered

19

Petitioner to make an election regarding how he wanted to proceed with regard to his unexhausted

20

claims. The Order required Petitioner to: (1) file an amended petition that includes only his

21

exhausted claims, along with a request to dismiss his unexhausted claims and proceed with his

22

exhausted claims, or (2) file a request for a stay of this matter while he exhausts his unexhausted

23

claims in state court.

24

On May 19, 2011, Petitioner filed an amended petition in which he elected to dismiss his

25

eleven unexhausted claims from the original petition, and proceed with only the exhausted claims.

26

Accordingly, unexhausted claims six, nine, eleven and fourteen as well as claims sixteen through

27

twenty-two are dismissed from this action.

28

In light of the dismissal of the eleven unexhausted claims, the petition appears to contain
only the remaining eleven exhausted claims, which have been renumbered as claims one through

1

eleven in his amended petition and should be addressed on their merits. The Court now sets a new

2

schedule below for the parties to file their briefs pursuant to the March 5, 2010 Order To Show

3

Cause.

4

CONCLUSION

5

1.

Petitioner's claims six, nine, eleven and fourteen as well as claims sixteen through

6

twenty-two from the original petition are DISMISSED based on his voluntary dismissal of those

7

claims.

8
9

2.

Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, within sixty (60)

days of the issuance of this Order, an Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued as

11

to claims one through eleven in his amended petition. Respondent shall file with the Answer a copy

12

of all portions of the relevant state records that have been transcribed previously and that are

13

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

14

3.

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse with

15

the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the Answer. Should

16

Petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision thirty (30)

17

days after the date Petitioner is served with Respondent's Answer.

18

4.

It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court

19

and Respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a

20

timely fashion. Petitioner must also serve on Respondent's counsel all communications with the

21

Court by mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent's counsel.

22

5.

Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted.

23

Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than ten (10) days prior to the deadline

24

sought to be extended.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

5/25/11
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

27
28
2

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

RAYMOND-CARLOS QUINONEZ,

5

Plaintiff,

Case Number: CV09-04272 SBA
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
6
7
8

v.
HARRINGTON et al,
Defendant.

/

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

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 May 27, 2011, 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.

14
15
16
17
18
19

Raymond-Carlos Quinonez E-15587
Kern Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 5103
Delano, CA 93216-5103
Dated: May 27, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.09\Quinonez4272.OSCafterELECTION.wpd
3