From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reyes v. Lizzaraga

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 31, 2021
18-cv-04388-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2021)

Opinion

18-cv-04388-EMC

08-31-2021

JUVENAL ANGEL REYES, Plaintiff, v. JOE LIZZARAGA, Defendant.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EDWARD M. CHEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state criminal conviction. See Docket No. 35. 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 clerk must electronically serve a copy of this order upon the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following e-mail address: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov. The clerk must also include a copy of the “consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction form.” The petition and any exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing system for the Northern District of California.

2. No later than sixty days from the date of this Order, Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner an Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent shall file with the Answer all portions of the state record that have been transcribed previously and are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty days of his receipt of the Answer. If he does not do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision on the date the Traverse is due.

3. No later than sixty days from the date of this Order, Respondent may file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an Answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion within thirty days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen days of receipt of an opposition.

4. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than three days prior to the deadline sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Reyes v. Lizzaraga

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 31, 2021
18-cv-04388-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2021)
Case details for

Reyes v. Lizzaraga

Case Details

Full title:JUVENAL ANGEL REYES, Plaintiff, v. JOE LIZZARAGA, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Aug 31, 2021

Citations

18-cv-04388-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2021)