Cooper
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-01593
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Michael Cooper v. Johnson, Judge Tigar dismissed Cooper’s petition challenging state custody without prejudice for failing to respond to an order to show cause.
Michael Cooper’s federal petition was dismissed without prejudice. Raybon Johnson was listed as the respondent because the court identified him as Cooper’s current custodian.
What happened
Michael Cooper, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition seeking federal review of his custody against Raybon Johnson, the warden identified as his custodian.
The court ordered Cooper to explain why it should not dismiss the petition because it did not state a claim eligible for federal review. Cooper did not respond by the deadline or otherwise communicate with the court.
Judge Jon S. Tigar dismissed the case without prejudice because Cooper failed to pursue it. The court said any request to reopen must include Cooper’s response to the earlier order.
The detailed version
- Cooper · No. 4:20-cv-01593
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
Michael Cooper, a state prisoner at Lancaster State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking a writ of habeas corpus, a court order concerning unlawful state custody. He represented himself. Cooper did not name a respondent, so the court directed the clerk to list Raybon Johnson, identified as the current warden and Cooper’s custodian, as the respondent.
Court’s Order
On September 14, 2020, the court ordered Cooper to show cause—that is, to explain—why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim eligible for federal habeas relief. The deadline to respond passed, and Cooper neither filed an answer nor otherwise communicated with the court.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court stated that any request to reopen the case must be accompanied by Cooper’s answer to the September 14 order to show cause. The order did not decide the underlying habeas claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.