Lara v. Atchley
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-02403
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lara v. Atchley, Judge Rogers ordered the warden to answer Juan Pacheco Lara’s state-prisoner petition or seek dismissal on procedural grounds.
Juan Pacheco Lara, the petitioner, and Matthew Atchley, the substituted respondent and current warden identified in the order.
What happened
Juan Pacheco Lara, a state prisoner, filed a federal petition challenging his custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court said the petition did not appear meritless based on its face.
The court ordered Matthew Atchley, identified as the current warden, to file an answer within 60 days explaining why the requested relief should not be granted. Atchley could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Lara would then have time to respond, and the clerk was ordered to serve the filings and order.
Judge Yvonne Rogers also substituted Atchley as the respondent, required Lara to serve copies of court communications on the respondent’s lawyer, and reminded him to keep the court informed of any address change. The order did not decide whether Lara is entitled to relief.
The detailed version
- Lara v. Atchley · No. 4:21-cv-02403
- Yvonne Rogers
- May 12, 2021
Background
Juan Pacheco Lara, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking a writ of habeas corpus, a court order concerning allegedly unlawful custody. The opinion states that Lara paid the full filing fee. The court determined that the petition did not appear to be without merit based solely on its face.
Orders issued
The court issued an order to show cause rather than deciding the petition’s merits. The clerk was directed to serve the order on Matthew Atchley and the Attorney General of California, and to mail a copy to Lara.
Atchley was ordered to file and serve an answer within 60 days of the order’s issuance. The answer must comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and explain why the requested writ should not issue. Atchley must also provide relevant portions of previously transcribed state-court records.
The court permitted Atchley to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. If that motion is filed, Lara has 60 days after receiving it to file an opposition or state that he does not oppose it; Atchley then has 14 days after receiving any opposition to file a reply.
The order states that Lara must prosecute the case, keep the court and Atchley informed of any address change, comply with court orders, and serve Atchley’s counsel with copies of his court communications. It also states that, under the Northern District of California’s local rule, a case brought without a lawyer may be dismissed without prejudice under specified conditions involving returned mail and failure to provide an updated address. The court said reasonable extensions may be granted for good cause when requested by the applicable deadline.
Finally, the court substituted Matthew Atchley, described as the current warden of the prison where Lara is incarcerated, as the respondent under Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition and significance
Judge Yvonne Rogers issued an order requiring a response to the petition or permitting a procedural motion to dismiss. The order did not grant or deny the petition and did not decide whether Lara is entitled to habeas relief.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.