Woodhouse v. Anglea

Background

Keith E. Woodhouse, a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also asked for permission to proceed without paying the court’s filing fees. The order states that the petition did not appear to be without merit from its face.

Court’s Orders

The court granted the application to proceed without paying the filing fee. It directed the Clerk to serve the order, petition, and attachments on Patrick Eaton, identified in a footnote as the current acting warden of the prison where Woodhouse is incarcerated, and on the Attorney General of California.

The court ordered Eaton to file and serve, within 60 days, an answer under Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The answer must show cause—give reasons—why the writ should not be issued and must include relevant portions of the previously transcribed state-court record. Instead of an answer, Eaton could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period. If that occurred, Woodhouse would have 60 days to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition, and Eaton would have 14 days to reply after receiving any opposition.

The order also required Woodhouse to serve his court communications on counsel for the respondent, keep the court and respondent informed of any address change, and comply with court orders and deadlines. It stated that the court could dismiss an action without prejudice under the applicable local rule if mail to a self-represented party was returned as undeliverable and no updated address was provided within 60 days. The order terminated Docket No. 4.

Disposition and Significance

The court granted the request to proceed without paying fees and directed the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. This was an initial procedural order; the court did not decide the merits of Woodhouse’s petition or grant or deny the requested writ. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order on January 13, 2020.