Palagi v. Jenkins

Background

Tina M. Palagi, identified in the opinion as a federal prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution—Dublin Satellite Prison Camp, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She proceeded without a lawyer and paid the full filing fee. W. Z. Jenkins is identified as the warden and the respondent.

The court stated that the petition did not appear from its face to be without merit. The order did not describe or resolve the petition’s underlying claims.

Orders and deadlines

The clerk was directed to serve the respondent, the respondent’s attorney, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California with the order and a magistrate-judge jurisdiction consent form, and to mail a copy to Palagi.

Palagi had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. Jenkins was given 28 days to state whether he consented or declined. The order states that declining consent would not have adverse consequences and would result in reassignment to a district judge; if Jenkins consented, the case would remain with the assigned magistrate judge.

Within 60 days after the order was filed, Jenkins was required either to file an answer showing why the petition should not be granted and provide relevant exhibits, or to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. If Jenkins filed a motion to dismiss, Palagi could file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition within 28 days, and Jenkins could file a reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition. If Jenkins filed an answer, Palagi could file a response, called a traverse, within 28 days after receiving it.

The order also required Palagi to keep the court and respondent informed of any address change, comply with court orders, and send respondent’s counsel copies of communications filed with the court. The court stated that a case brought without a lawyer may be dismissed without prejudice under the circumstances described in the order if mail is returned as undeliverable and the party does not provide a current address within 60 days. The court also stated that timely requests for reasonable extensions would be granted upon a showing of good cause.

Ruling

Judge Ryu issued an order to show cause and established the briefing and consent procedures. The order did not grant or deny the § 2241 petition and did not decide the merits of Palagi’s claims.

Classification basis

This is a procedural order because it sets the next steps in the petition, requires a response or procedural motion, and does not decide whether Palagi is entitled to relief.