Ramirez v. Robertson
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-02876
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ramirez v. Robertson, Judge Orrick found Ramirez stated a recognizable due-process claim and ordered a response, while noting possible untimeliness.
Arthur Nester Ramirez's federal habeas case and respondent James Robertson.
What happened
In Ramirez v. Robertson, Arthur Nester Ramirez challenged a 2018 prison disciplinary decision that caused him to lose 61 days of time credits. He claimed the proceedings violated due process.
The court found that the petition stated a claim that could support federal relief. It ordered James Robertson to file an answer or a motion to dismiss by August 23, 2021, and directed Robertson to consider whether the petition was filed too late. The court did not decide whether Ramirez should receive relief.
Judge William H. Orrick issued an order requiring the case to proceed through the next response stage. The order also explained that Ramirez had to follow court deadlines and keep the court and Robertson informed of any address change.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Robertson · No. 3:20-cv-02876
- William Orrick
- May 19, 2021
Background
Arthur Nester Ramirez sought federal relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from a 2018 prison disciplinary decision at Pelican Bay State Prison. He had been found guilty of refusing to accept a cellmate and was punished by losing 61 days of time credits. Ramirez alleged that he was denied due process during the disciplinary proceedings.
Initial Review
The court reviewed the amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. That review allows a court to dismiss a petition at the outset when its allegations are vague, conclusory, plainly incredible, frivolous, or false. The court concluded that, when read generously, Ramirez's allegations stated a cognizable due-process claim—that is, a claim legally capable of supporting habeas relief.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause rather than deciding the ultimate merits of the petition. It directed respondent James Robertson to file, by August 23, 2021, either an answer explaining why the writ should not be granted or a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. The court also required an answer to comply with Rule 5 and include relevant portions of the previously transcribed state-court record.
The court noted that the petition might be untimely because the disciplinary decision was issued in 2018 and Ramirez did not file the federal petition until 2020. Robertson was directed to consider that issue and was permitted, but not required, to file a motion to dismiss based on untimeliness.
Other Instructions and Disposition
The clerk was ordered to serve the order on Robertson, his attorney, and Ramirez. Ramirez was told that he could respond to an answer and had to serve court filings on Robertson's counsel. The order stated that failure to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court granted any request for a reasonable extension of time only upon a showing of good cause and if filed before the deadline.
The court did not grant or deny habeas relief and did not decide whether the petition was timely. Judge William H. Orrick ordered the respondent to answer or file a procedural motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.