Drew v. Robertson

Background

Karl D. Drew filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the Board of Parole Hearings’ denial of parole. The Ninth Circuit transferred the petition to the Northern District of California. The petition was deemed filed on August 22, 2022, and Drew paid the full filing fee.

Order to Show Cause

The court stated that the petition did not appear plainly meritless. It therefore issued an order to show cause, which requires the respondent to explain why the requested writ should not be granted. The court ordered respondent Jim Robertson, identified in the caption as warden, to file and serve an answer within 60 days. The answer must comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and include relevant portions of the previously transcribed state record.

Instead of an answer, Robertson could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period. If that occurred, Drew would have 60 days after receiving the motion to file an opposition or a statement that he did not oppose it. Robertson could then file a reply within 14 days after receiving an opposition.

Other Requirements and Disposition

The court directed Drew to serve respondent’s counsel with his communications to the court, keep the court and respondent informed of any address change, and comply with court orders. The court stated that, under the cited local rule, a case could be dismissed without prejudice if court mail sent to a self-represented party was returned as undeliverable and the party did not provide a current address within 60 days after the return.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers did not rule on the merits of Drew’s parole challenge. The order instead began the response process and set deadlines for the answer, any procedural motion to dismiss, and any reply or traverse.