Barrett v. McDowell
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-05990
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Barrett v. Holbrook, Magistrate Judge Ryu ordered the respondent to answer Barrett’s imprisonment-challenge petition and set deadlines without deciding its merits.
John Thomas Barrett and D. Holbrook; the order also directed service on the Attorney General of California and set obligations for both sides.
What happened
In John Thomas Barrett v. D. Holbrook, Barrett, a state prisoner, filed a petition challenging his imprisonment under federal law and paid the filing fee. The court said the petition did not appear plainly meritless.
The court ordered the Clerk to serve the petition and related documents on D. Holbrook and the California Attorney General. Holbrook must either consent to or decline magistrate-judge jurisdiction within 28 days and must file an answer or a procedural motion to dismiss within 60 days. Barrett may respond within the deadlines described in the order.
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu issued an order to show cause on October 24, 2019. The order started the response process and set case-management requirements; it did not decide whether Barrett is entitled to relief.
The detailed version
- Barrett v. McDowell · No. 5:19-cv-05990
- Edward Davila
- Oct. 24, 2019
Background
John Thomas Barrett, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his imprisonment. He paid the full filing fee. The opinion states that the petition did not appear, on its face, to be without merit.
The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. Barrett had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. The respondent was permitted to withhold consent without adverse consequences; if the respondent declined, the case would be reassigned to a district judge.
Court’s Orders
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning that it required the respondent to explain why the requested relief should not be granted. The Clerk was directed to serve the respondent and the Attorney General of California with the order, petition, attachments, and a magistrate-jurisdiction consent form.
Within 28 days after the order’s issuance, the respondent had to state whether the respondent consented to or declined magistrate-judge jurisdiction. Within 60 days, the respondent had to file an answer complying with the rules for Section 2254 cases, together with relevant previously transcribed state-court records. Instead of an answer, the respondent could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period.
If the respondent filed an answer, Barrett could file a response within 28 days after receiving it. If the respondent filed a motion to dismiss, Barrett 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. The order also required Barrett to keep the court and respondent’s counsel informed of address changes, serve copies of his court filings on respondent’s counsel, and file any extension request before the deadline.
Disposition
The court did not grant or deny the petition and did not decide the underlying issues. It ordered the respondent to respond and established briefing and case-management deadlines. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on October 24, 2019.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.