Jackson v. Bonta
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-04625
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jackson v. Samuel, Judge Rogers ordered the acting warden to respond to Lee A. Jackson’s habeas petition without deciding its merits.
Lee A. Jackson’s habeas petition proceeds to the response stage. Danny Samuel must file an answer or a procedural motion within the ordered deadline, and Jackson may respond under the deadlines in the order.
What happened
Lee A. Jackson, a state prisoner, filed a petition asking the federal court to review his custody under federal habeas law. He paid the full filing fee, and the court said the petition did not appear meritless on its face.
The court ordered the respondent to answer within 60 days and provide relevant portions of the state-court record. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Jackson may respond to either filing within the deadlines set by the order.
Judge Yvonne Rogers also substituted Danny Samuel, the prison’s current acting warden, as the respondent. This order began the case’s response process; it did not decide whether Jackson is entitled to habeas relief.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Bonta · No. 4:21-cv-04625
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 22, 2021
Background
Lee A. Jackson, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He paid the full filing fee. The court stated that, based on the petition itself, it did not appear to be without merit.
Orders to the Respondent
The court issued an order to show cause, which required the respondent to explain why habeas relief should not be granted. The Clerk was directed to serve the order on Danny Samuel and the Attorney General of California, and to mail a copy to Jackson.
The respondent was ordered to file and serve an answer within 60 days after the order’s issuance. The answer must comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and include relevant portions of the previously transcribed state-court record.
The respondent was also permitted to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. If that occurred, Jackson would have 60 days after receiving the motion to file an opposition or a statement that he did not oppose it. The respondent could then file a reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition.
Further Case Requirements
If Jackson wished to respond to an answer, he was required to file and serve a traverse within 60 days after receiving the answer. If he did not do so, the petition would be treated as submitted and ready for decision 60 days after service of the answer. The order also required Jackson to keep the court and opposing counsel informed of any address change and to serve opposing counsel with communications filed with the court.
The court stated that reasonable extensions could be granted for good cause if requested on or before the deadline. It substituted Danny Samuel, the current acting warden of the prison where Jackson was incarcerated, as respondent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
Disposition
The court did not grant or deny habeas relief and did not decide the petition’s underlying claims. Judge Yvonne Rogers ordered the respondent to answer or file a procedural motion and set deadlines for the next steps.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.