Johnson v. Swarthout et al

Filing 17

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Habeas Answer due by 10/9/2012. Motions due by 10/1/2012. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/7/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2012)

1

United States District Court

2

Northern District of California

3
4

PAUL SAMUEL JOHNSON,
Petitioner,

5
6
7

v.
SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF STEVE
FREITAS,

8

Case No.: C 11-6688 CW (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

Respondent.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed this petition for a

11

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging

12

the validity of his criminal conviction.

13

the face of the petition that it is without merit.

14

appearing, the Court hereby issues the following orders:

15
16
17

1.

It does not appear from
Good cause

Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED.
2.

The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order

18

and the petition and all attachments thereto upon Respondent and

19

Respondent’s attorney, the Office of the County Counsel, 575

20

Administration Drive, Room 105-A, Santa Rosa, CA, 95403.1

21

Clerk shall also serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner at his

22

current address.

23
24

3.

The

Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon

Petitioner, within sixty days of the issuance of this Order, an

25
1

26
27
28

Petitioner was in state prison when he filed this petition,
but now is incarcerated at the Sonoma County Jail. In accordance
with Rule 2(a)of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings and Rule
25(d)(1)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court
substitutes Steve Freitas, the Sheriff of Sonoma County, as
Respondent, in place of Gary Swarthout and Matthew Cate.

1

Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

2

Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas

3

corpus should not be issued.

4

Answer a copy of all portions of the relevant state records that

5

have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a

6

determination of the issues presented by the petition.

7

4.

Respondent shall file with the

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall

do so by filing a Traverse with the Court and serving it on

9

Respondent within thirty days of his receipt of the Answer.

10
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

Should Petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed

11

submitted and ready for decision on the date the Traverse is due.

12

5.

Respondent may file with this Court and serve upon

13

Petitioner, within fifty-six days of the issuance of this Order,

14

a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an Answer,

15

as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the

16

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

17

If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file

18

with the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement

19

of non-opposition to the motion within twenty-eight days of

20

receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court

21

and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen days of receipt

22

of any opposition.

23

6.

It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this

24

case.

25

any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in

26

a timely fashion.

27

counsel all communications with the Court by mailing a true copy

28

of the document to Respondent’s counsel.

Petitioner must keep the Court and Respondent informed of

Petitioner must also serve on Respondent’s

1

7.

Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable

2

extensions will be granted.

3

must be filed no later than ten days prior to the deadline sought

4

to be extended.

5

8.

Any motion for an extension of time

The Clerk of the Court is directed to change the court

6

docket to substitute Sonoma County Sheriff Steve Freitas as

7

Respondent in place of Respondents Gary Swarthout and Matthew

8

Cate.

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

8/7/2012

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

____________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE