Baldwin v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:21-cv-04225
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Gregory Baldwin v. Robert Burton, Judge Seeborg found Baldwin’s parole-date claim sufficient to proceed, ordered a response, and denied his fee-waiver request because he paid.
Gregory Baldwin and respondent Robert Burton; the case continues because the court ordered a response to Baldwin’s amended petition.
What happened
In Gregory Baldwin v. Robert Burton, Gregory Baldwin challenged the accuracy of his release or parole date, saying he was entitled to be released earlier. The court found that his amended petition raised a due-process claim that could proceed.
The court ordered Robert Burton to respond by June 1, 2022, either by answering the petition or filing a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Baldwin could respond within 30 days after any answer or motion.
Judge Richard Seeborg denied Baldwin’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee because Baldwin had already paid it. The order did not decide whether Baldwin was ultimately entitled to an earlier release or parole date.
The detailed version
- Baldwin v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation · No. 3:21-cv-04225
- Richard Seeborg
- Feb. 22, 2022
Background
Gregory Baldwin filed an amended petition asking for federal review of his state custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He stated that he was sentenced in 1999 to 31 years and four months based on state criminal convictions. He alleged that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had calculated his current release date incorrectly and that he was entitled to an earlier release or parole date.
Initial review
The court reviewed the amended petition under the federal statute and the rules governing these state-custody petitions. It concluded that, when read liberally, Baldwin had stated a due-process claim concerning his release or parole date. The court therefore issued an order requiring the respondent to show why the requested relief should not be granted. This was an initial screening decision, not a final decision on whether Baldwin’s release or parole date was actually wrong.
Orders to the parties
The respondent had to file an answer by June 1, 2022, together with relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. Instead of an answer, the respondent could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds by that date. Baldwin could file a response within 30 days after an answer or motion, and the respondent could reply within 15 days after any opposition to a motion.
Filing-fee motion
Baldwin asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied that motion because he had already paid the fee and directed the clerk to terminate it.
Disposition and significance
The court ordered the respondent to respond to Baldwin’s amended petition and left the merits of the release-date claim unresolved. It also instructed Baldwin to prosecute the case, keep the court and respondent informed of address changes, and comply with court deadlines. The opinion states that failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge Richard Seeborg also directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.