Scott v. Santoro
- Nathanael Cousins
- 3:25-cv-05202
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In James Scott v. Santoro, Judge Martinez-Olguin allowed the self-represented petitioner to proceed without fees and ordered a response to his petition.
James Scott and Kelly Santoro, the substituted respondent; the order also directs the California Attorney General’s Office to receive service and respond for the respondent.
What happened
In James Scott v. Kelly Santoro, Acting Warden, James Scott, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition asking the federal court to review his custody and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court granted permission to proceed without fees because the petition did not appear meritless on its face. The court directed the respondent to answer within 60 days and provide relevant state records, while allowing a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin also set deadlines for Scott’s response, required him to keep the court informed of address changes, and substituted Kelly Santoro as the respondent. The order did not decide whether Scott should receive relief.
The detailed version
- Scott V. Santoro · No. 3:25-cv-05202
- Nathanael Cousins
- Nov. 17, 2025
Background
James Scott, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning an order addressing allegedly unlawful custody. He represented himself and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
Court’s orders
The court granted Scott permission to proceed without fees. It stated that the petition did not appear meritless on its face, then directed service of the order on Kelly Santoro and the California Attorney General’s Office.
The court ordered Santoro to file an answer within 60 days of the order’s issuance, following the federal rules governing § 2254 cases, and to provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state-court record. Scott may file a response within 60 days after receiving the answer.
Instead of an answer, Santoro may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period. If that occurs, Scott may file an opposition or state that he does not oppose the motion within 60 days after receiving it, and Santoro may file a reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition.
The court reminded Scott that he is responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court and respondent informed of any address change, following court orders, and serving respondent’s counsel with his court filings. The order also states that the court may dismiss the petition without prejudice if mail is returned as undeliverable and Scott does not provide a current address within 60 days after the return. The court stated that reasonable extensions may be granted for good cause when requested before the deadline.
Kelly Santoro, identified as the current acting warden of the prison where Scott is incarcerated, was substituted as respondent under Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order terminated Docket Nos. 6 and 7.
Disposition and significance
This was an initial procedural order. The court granted permission to proceed without fees and directed the respondent to show cause, through an answer or potentially a procedural motion to dismiss, why the petition should not be granted. The court did not decide the merits of Scott’s petition or grant a writ.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.