Shaw v. Diaz

Filing 10

**DISREGARD, SEE DOCKET NO. 11 .** ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 8/5/2013. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/5/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2013) Modified on 6/5/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 JOHN SHAW aka JOHN HSIA, Petitioner, 5 No. C 13-1739 CW (PR) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 6 7 RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden, 8 Respondent. ________________________________/ 9 Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed this pro se petition United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 12 challenging his criminal conviction. 13 fee. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 He has paid the $5.00 filing It does not appear from the face of the petition that it is without merit.1 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.2 The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner at his current address. 2. No later than sixty days from the date of this Order, Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner an 1 The Court refers Respondent to Petitioner’s prior habeas action which the Court dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. See Shaw v. Wong, C 09-0077 CW (PR). 2 Error! Main Document Only.Ralph M. Diaz, the warden at the California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility at Corcoran, where Petitioner is incarcerated, has been substituted as Respondent pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 2 Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus 3 should not be issued. 4 portions of the state record that have been transcribed previously 5 and are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the 6 petition. 7 Respondent shall file with the Answer all If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so 8 by filing a Traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent 9 no later than thirty days from his receipt of the Answer. If he United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 does not do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready 11 for decision on the date the Traverse is due. 12 3. No later than sixty days from the date of this Order, 13 Respondent may file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner a 14 motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an Answer, as 15 set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules 16 Governing Section 2254 Cases. 17 If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with 18 the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of 19 non-opposition to the motion within twenty-eight days of receipt 20 of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve 21 on Petitioner a reply within fourteen days of receipt of an 22 opposition. 23 4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this 24 case. 25 change of address and comply with the Court’s orders in a timely 26 fashion. 27 communications with the Court by mailing a true copy of the 28 document to Respondent’s counsel. He must keep the Court and Respondent informed of any He also must serve on Respondent’s counsel all 1 5. 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 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Any motion for an extension of time IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6/5/2013 ____________________________ CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?