Rios v. Frauenheim
- Beth Freeman
- 5:15-cv-01357
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Rios v. Frauenheim, Judge Freeman reopened Rios’s federal challenge, lifted the stay, and required a response while denying an evidentiary hearing as premature.
Ulysses Alexander Rios, the petitioner representing himself, and S. Frauenheim, the respondent and warden, were affected. The respondent was required to answer or file a procedural motion, and the case was reopened for further proceedings.
What happened
Rios v. Frauenheim concerns Ulysses Alexander Rios’s federal challenge to his state conviction. The court had stayed the case while Rios pursued an unexhausted claim about ineffective assistance by appellate counsel.
The court granted Rios’s motion to reopen the case and lifted the stay. It found his claims understandable as federal habeas claims and required S. Frauenheim, the respondent, to file an answer or a procedural motion. The court denied Rios’s request for an evidentiary hearing as premature.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman also set deadlines for the respondent’s filing and any response by Rios. This order did not decide whether Rios is entitled to relief on his claims.
The detailed version
- Rios v. Frauenheim · No. 5:15-cv-01357
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 6, 2020
Background
Ulysses Alexander Rios, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction from Santa Clara County. The court had previously denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss and stayed the case while Rios exhausted an unexhausted claim concerning ineffective assistance by appellate counsel. The court had instructed Rios to notify it after the California Supreme Court ruled on that claim and to seek reopening of the federal case.
Rios filed a motion to reopen and a second amended petition. He asserted claims for ineffective assistance of counsel and ineffective assistance by appellate counsel.
Rulings
The court granted the motion to reopen, lifted the stay, and directed the clerk to reopen the case. It stated that, liberally construed, Rios’s claims were cognizable and warranted a response from the respondent. The order required the respondent to file and serve an answer complying with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases within 60 days, along with relevant previously transcribed portions of the state trial record.
The respondent was permitted to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. The order set deadlines for Rios’s opposition or statement of non-opposition and the respondent’s reply. If Rios wished to respond to an answer, he was required to file a response within 30 days after receiving it.
The court denied Rios’s request for an evidentiary hearing as premature. It also reminded Rios that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and complying with court orders, warning that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Effect of the Order
Judge Beth Labson Freeman’s order reopened the case and moved it forward to the response stage. It did not resolve the merits of Rios’s ineffective-assistance claims or decide whether federal relief should be granted. The order terminated Docket No. 35.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.