From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Fisher

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Nov 15, 2021
21cv1443-MMA-LL (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021)

Opinion

21cv1443-MMA-LL

11-15-2021

PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. OFFICER FISHER, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER:

(1) VACATING COURT'S OCTOBER 25, 2021 ORDER

(2) ISSUING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS

HONORABLE LINDA LOPEZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On October 28, 2021, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 20. Additionally, Respondent requests that the Court vacate its October 25, 2021 order instructing Respondent to contact the San Diego County Jail regarding Petitioner's access to his legal materials and provide a response to Petitioner's request for access. Id. at 4-5. Respondent states that he has no control over Petitioner and his ability to access legal materials because the San Diego County Sheriff, and not Respondent, has control over Petitioner who is now housed in the San Diego County Jail. Id.

The Court finds it appropriate to GRANT Respondent's motion to vacate the October 25, 2021 Court order [ECF No. 19] because Respondent has no control over Petitioner's ability to access legal materials in the San Diego County Jail. To alleviate Petitioner's legal access issues, the Court ORDERS the following:

1. Petitioner shall file his opposition or non-opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on or before January 6, 2022 . Petitioner shall address Respondent's arguments that (1) Petitioner has not shown how success on his claim for parole consideration would necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement, rather than merely a consideration of such relief; and (2) Petitioner's claims are moot because he is no longer in CDCR custody and he has not shown that he will be returned to CDCR custody.

2. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to attach to the copy of this order which will be mailed to Petitioner the following: (1) a copy of Petitioner's petition [ECF No. 1] and (2) a copy of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 20].

3. Unless the Court orders otherwise, Respondent must not file a reply to Petitioner's opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Fisher

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Nov 15, 2021
21cv1443-MMA-LL (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Fisher

Case Details

Full title:PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. OFFICER FISHER, Warden, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Nov 15, 2021

Citations

21cv1443-MMA-LL (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021)