Gutierrez v. Diaz
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:19-cv-04432
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gutierrez v. Koenig, Judge Rogers ordered the warden to answer a state-prisoner’s habeas petition without deciding its merits.
Ernesto Gutierrez’s federal challenge to his state custody proceeds to the response stage. Craig Koenig, the acting warden, must respond or file a procedural motion, and the California Attorney General must receive service as the respondent’s attorney.
What happened
In Gutierrez v. Koenig, Ernesto Gutierrez, a state prisoner, filed a petition asking the federal court to review his custody under a federal statute. He paid the filing fee, and the court found that the petition did not appear meritless on its face.
The court ordered the clerk to serve the petition on Acting Warden Craig Koenig and the California Attorney General. Koenig must file an answer within 60 days, although he may instead file a motion raising procedural grounds. Gutierrez may respond to either filing. The court also required the parties to follow filing, service, address-update, and deadline rules.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an order to show cause, which begins the response process but does not decide whether Gutierrez is entitled to relief. The court also substituted Koenig for the prior warden because Koenig was the current acting warden.
The detailed version
- Gutierrez v. Diaz · No. 4:19-cv-04432
- Yvonne Rogers
- Nov. 12, 2019
Background
Ernesto Gutierrez, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. That statute allows a state prisoner to seek federal review of the legality of state custody. Gutierrez paid the full filing fee. The court stated that the petition did not appear to be without merit based solely on its contents.
Court’s orders
The court issued an order to show cause. It directed the clerk to serve the order, petition, and attachments on Craig Koenig, the acting warden, and on the Attorney General of California. The clerk also had to serve Gutierrez at his current address.
Koenig was ordered to file and serve an answer within 60 days of the order’s issuance. The answer must comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and explain why the requested relief should not be granted. Koenig also had to provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state-court record.
Koenig could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. If that occurred, Gutierrez would have 60 days after receiving the motion to file an opposition or a statement that he did not oppose it; Koenig would then have 14 days after receiving any opposition to file a reply. If Gutierrez responded to an answer, he had 60 days after receiving it to file a traverse, meaning his written response. If he did not do so, the petition would be treated as ready for decision.
The order stated that Gutierrez was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court and Koenig informed of any address change, complying with court orders, and serving Koenig’s counsel with copies of his court communications. The court also stated that reasonable extensions could be granted for good cause if requested before the applicable deadline. Finally, the court substituted Koenig as respondent under Rule 25(d) because he was the current acting warden of the prison where Gutierrez was incarcerated.
Disposition and significance
The court did not grant or deny the habeas petition and did not decide the underlying legal issues. It ordered the respondent to respond and allowed a procedural motion to dismiss in place of an answer. The case therefore remained pending. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.