Chavez v. United States of America

Filing 19

SECOND ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE AMENDED PETITION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 6/7/2021. Habeas Answer due by 7/26/2021. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ANNETTE CHRISTINA CHAVEZ,

Case No. 20-cv-04432-YGR (PR)

Petitioner,
5
v.
6
WARDEN GARCIA, Warden,
7

SECOND ORDER DIRECTING
RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY THE AMENDED PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED

Respondent.
8
9

This federal habeas corpus action was dismissed because Petitioner failed to respond to
notices from the Clerk of the Court to file a timely completed habeas corpus petition form along

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). She then filed her completed habeas

12

corpus petition form and perfected her IFP application. See Dkts. 12, 13. Prison records

13

confirmed that Petitioner’s delay in filing such documents was caused by a lack of notice because

14

the prison “d[id] not have any record of receiving such correspondence from the courts.” Dkt. 13

15

at 5. In an Order dated March 2, 2021, the Court construed Petitioner’s filings as a motion to

16

reopen the instant action, granted the motion, and reopened the instant action. Dkt. 17. The Court

17

directed Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. See id. To date, no

18

answer to the petition has been filed. Instead, Clerk’s Office personnel has been informed that due

19

to the ongoing pandemic and newly installed procedures, the United States Attorney’s Office did

20

not receive notice of the Court’s March 2, 2021 Order. In any event, on May 14, 2021, Petitioner

21

has filed a new petition, which Court construes as her “Amended Petition.” Dkt. 18. Because no

22

answer has been filed, the Court grants Petitioner leave to file an Amended Petition.

23
24
25
26
27
28

It does not appear from the face of the Amended Petition that it is without merit. Good
cause appearing, the Court hereby issues the following orders:
1.

The Court grants Petitioner leave to file an Amended Petition. The Clerk shall

docket the new petition as her “Amended Petition” and mark it as filed on May 14, 2021.
2.

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order and the Amended Petition and all at

attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the United States Attorney for

1

the Northern District of California, at the following email addresses: (1) [e-mail];

2

(2) [e-mail]; and (3) [e-mail]. The Amended Petition and the

3

exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of

4

California. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order on Petitioner.

5

3.

Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, no later than July

6

26, 2021, an Answer responding to the allegations in the Amended Petition and showing cause

7

why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve

8

on Petitioner a copy of all documents that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented.

9

4.

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

Traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent within sixty (60) days of Petitioner’s receipt

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of the Answer. Should Petitioner fail to do so, the Amended Petition will be deemed submitted

12

and ready for decision sixty (60) days after the date Petitioner is served with the Answer.

13

5.

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

14

Court and Respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s

15

orders in a timely fashion. Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro

16

se whose address changes while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of

17

address specifying the new address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss a pro se action

18

without prejudice when: (1) mail directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the

19

Court as not deliverable, and (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written

20

communication from the pro se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b); see also

21

Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

22

Petitioner must also serve on Respondent’s counsel all communications with the Court by mailing

23

a true copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel.

24
25
26
27
28

6.

Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 4, 2021

______________________________________
JUDGE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge
2