Torres v. Kernan
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-03159
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Torres v. Kernan, Judge Hamilton ordered a response to Mario Torres’s amended petition alleging plea, resentencing, and restitution errors.
Mario Torres must respond to any answer or procedural motion and follow the court’s filing and service requirements; Scott Kernan, as respondent, must file an answer or a procedural motion within 60 days.
What happened
In Torres v. Kernan, Mario Torres, a former state prisoner representing himself, filed an amended petition asking a federal court to review his state-court custody. The court had previously paused the case so he could pursue additional claims, and the pause had been lifted.
Torres claimed that officials violated his plea agreement, resentenced him improperly, and improperly imposed restitution during resentencing. The court found that, when read generously, these claims were sufficient to require a response.
Judge Hamilton ordered the respondent to file an answer within 60 days, along with relevant parts of the state trial record. The respondent may instead file a motion challenging the case on procedural grounds. The order did not decide whether Torres should receive relief.
The detailed version
- Torres v. Kernan · No. 4:20-cv-03159
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 7, 2021
Background
Mario Torres, a former state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to grant relief from custody based on alleged violations of federal law. The petition had been stayed so Torres could exhaust additional claims. After the stay was lifted, Torres filed an amended petition.
Claims
Torres asserted three grounds for relief: (1) violation of his plea agreement; (2) improper resentencing; and (3) improper imposition of restitution at resentencing. Applying the pleading standard for a § 2254 petition, the court concluded that, when liberally construed, the claims were sufficient to require a response.
Order
The court ordered the respondent to file and serve an answer within 60 days explaining why the requested relief should not be granted. The respondent also must provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. Instead of an answer, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period. Torres may respond to an answer or motion within the time limits stated in the order.
The clerk was directed to serve the order on the California Attorney General and Torres. The court also reminded Torres to serve his filings on respondent’s counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders; failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order did not reach the merits of Torres’s claims or decide whether he is entitled to relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.