Wilkins v. Lozano

Background

Keith M. Wilkins, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking a writ of habeas corpus, meaning a federal court review of the legality of his state custody. He also asked to proceed without paying filing fees. The court stated that the petition did not appear meritless on its face.

Rulings and next steps

The court granted Wilkins’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. It directed the clerk to serve the order, petition, and attachments on Jared D. Lozano and the Attorney General of the State of California.

The court ordered Lozano to file and serve an answer within 60 days, explaining why the petition should not be granted and providing relevant portions of the state-court record. Instead of an answer, Lozano may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period. If that occurs, Wilkins has 60 days to file an opposition or a statement that he does not oppose the motion, and Lozano may file a reply within 14 days after receiving an opposition.

Wilkins must prosecute the case, keep the court and respondent informed of address changes, and serve respondent’s counsel with communications filed with the court. The order also states that reasonable extensions may be granted for good cause if requested before the deadline. The court substituted Jared D. Lozano, identified as the current warden of the prison where Wilkins is incarcerated, as respondent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), and terminated Docket No. 2.

What the order did not decide

The court did not decide the merits of Wilkins’s petition and did not grant or deny habeas relief. It directed the case to continue through an answer or a possible procedural motion.