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)

Download PDF
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); 2 (2); and (3) 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

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?