Lopez v. Gastelo
- Donna Ryu
- 3:19-cv-05788
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Lopez v. Gastelo, Judge Ryu ordered the respondent to answer Enrique Nunes Lopez’s petition challenging his state custody.
Enrique Nunes Lopez must comply with the response, service, and address requirements. Josie Gastelo must choose whether to consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction and must file either an answer or a procedural motion within the stated deadline.
What happened
In Lopez v. Gastelo, Enrique Nunes Lopez, a state prisoner, filed a petition asking the federal court for relief under a law governing challenges to state custody. The court said the petition did not appear meritless based only on its face.
The court ordered the Clerk to send the petition and related documents to Josie Gastelo and the California Attorney General’s Office. Gastelo had 60 days to file an answer explaining why relief should not be granted, or to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead. Lopez could respond within the stated deadlines.
Judge Donna M. Ryu also required the parties to address whether they consented to her handling the case, and instructed Lopez to keep the court informed of any address change and to serve his filings on opposing counsel. The order did not decide the petition’s merits.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Gastelo · No. 3:19-cv-05788
- Donna Ryu
- Oct. 24, 2019
Nature of the proceeding
Enrique Nunes Lopez, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He paid the full filing fee. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu, and Lopez consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. The order states that a magistrate judge may conduct all proceedings, including entering judgment, if all parties consent. Respondent was given a form to indicate whether she consented or declined.
Court’s action
The court stated that the petition did not appear to be without merit based on its face and issued an order to show cause. In practical terms, the order required the respondent to explain why the requested relief should not be granted.
The Clerk was directed to serve the respondent and the California Attorney General’s Office with the order, the signed petition, and its attachments. Within 60 days after the order’s issuance, the respondent was required either to file an answer complying with the rules for petitions under § 2254 and provide relevant portions of the state record, or to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead.
If an answer was filed, Lopez could submit a response within 28 days after receiving it. If the respondent filed a motion to dismiss, Lopez could file an opposition or a statement that he did not oppose the motion within 28 days, and the respondent could reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition.
Other instructions and disposition
The order stated that Lopez was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court and respondent informed of any address change, and serving the respondent’s counsel with copies of his communications to the court. It also stated that, under the cited local rule, the court may dismiss a self-represented action without prejudice in specified circumstances involving returned mail and failure to provide an updated address. Requests for reasonable extensions could be granted upon a showing of good cause if filed by the relevant deadline.
The court did not grant or deny the petition and did not decide whether Lopez was entitled to relief. This was an initial procedural order setting service and briefing requirements. Judge Donna M. Ryu signed the order on October 24, 2019. The attached certificate of service separately lists Tammy Foss as the defendant, which does not match the order’s caption naming Josie Gastelo as respondent.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.