Romero v. Covello
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-07396
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Romero v. Covello, Judge Rogers ordered the state to respond to Carlos Romero’s habeas petition, allowing the case to proceed past initial review.
Carlos Romero, whose federal petition will proceed to the response stage, and Patrick Covello, who must respond or file a procedural motion within the ordered deadline.
What happened
In Romero v. Covello, Carlos Romero, a state prisoner, asked the federal court to review his imprisonment under federal law. He paid the filing fee, and the court said the petition did not appear meritless from its face.
The court ordered Patrick Covello, the warden, to respond within 60 days by filing an answer and relevant state records. Covello could instead file a motion asking the court to dismiss the petition for procedural reasons. If an answer is filed, Romero may respond within 60 days; if a dismissal motion is filed, the parties have specified deadlines for opposition and reply papers.
Judge Rogers issued an order requiring these next steps but did not decide whether Romero is entitled to relief. The order also required Romero to keep the court informed of his address, serve the opposing side with his filings, and comply with court deadlines.
The detailed version
- Romero v. Covello · No. 4:21-cv-07396
- Yvonne Rogers
- Nov. 3, 2021
Background
Carlos Romero, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute allowing a state prisoner to ask a federal court to review the legality of his custody. He paid the full filing fee. The court stated that the petition did not appear to be without merit based on its face.
Court’s Orders
The court ordered the clerk to serve the order on Patrick Covello, identified as the warden, and on the Attorney General of California. Within 60 days after the order was issued, Covello had to file and serve an answer complying with Rule 5 of the rules governing section 2254 cases, explaining why the requested relief should not be granted. Covello also had to file relevant portions of previously transcribed state-court records.
Romero could file and serve a written response, called a traverse, within 60 days after receiving the answer. Instead of an answer, Covello could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within 60 days. If that occurred, Romero would have 60 days after receiving the motion to file an opposition or a statement that he did not oppose it, and Covello would have 14 days after receiving any opposition to file a reply.
The order stated that Romero was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court and opposing counsel informed of any address change, meeting deadlines, and mailing copies of his court filings to opposing counsel. It also stated that, upon a showing of good cause, the court would grant reasonable extensions requested before the relevant deadline.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an order to show cause and set the case’s response schedule. This was a procedural step requiring the respondent to address the petition; the court did not decide whether Romero’s custody violated federal law, did not grant or deny the petition, and did not enter a final judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.