Ruoff v. Covello

Background

Joshua Richard Ruoff, an incarcerated person at Mule Creek State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking a writ of habeas corpus, meaning a court order addressing allegedly unlawful custody under a state-court judgment. The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Initial Review

The court explained that summary dismissal at this stage is appropriate only when a petition’s allegations are vague, conclusory, clearly unbelievable, frivolous, or false. It concluded that none of Ruoff’s claims warranted summary dismissal. Ruoff acknowledged that he had not exhausted all of his claims through the state courts and stated an intention to seek a stay under Rhines v. Weber.

Orders and Deadlines

The court ordered the clerk to serve the order electronically on the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of California. Ruoff must file his motion to stay within 28 days of the order. The respondent must file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition within 21 days after the motion is filed, and Ruoff may file a reply within 14 days after the opposition is filed. The court stated that it would consider the stay motion submitted without oral argument unless it ordered otherwise.

The court deferred setting a deadline for the respondent to answer the petition until after ruling on the stay motion. It also stated that reasonable extensions would be granted upon a showing of good cause if requested by the applicable deadline. The order did not grant or deny the stay motion because no such motion had yet been decided.