Garcia v. McVay
- James Donato
- 3:22-cv-02612
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Garcia v. McVay, Magistrate Judge Ryu ordered the state to answer Manuel R. Garcia’s habeas petition or seek procedural dismissal, without deciding its merits.
Manuel R. Garcia must comply with the filing, service, address, and response requirements in the order. Matthew McVay must address magistrate-judge jurisdiction and either answer the amended petition or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds.
What happened
In Garcia v. McVay, Manuel R. Garcia filed an amended petition challenging his state custody under a federal habeas statute. The court said the petition did not appear meritless based on its face.
The court ordered Matthew McVay to consent or decline magistrate-judge jurisdiction within 28 days and, within 60 days, file an answer explaining why relief should not be granted or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Garcia may respond to an answer or dismissal motion within the stated deadlines.
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu also directed Garcia to keep the court informed of address changes and to follow filing and service requirements. The order did not decide whether Garcia is entitled to habeas relief.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. McVay · No. 3:22-cv-02612
- James Donato
- Feb. 13, 2023
Background
Manuel R. Garcia, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court had previously required corrections to the original petition. Garcia then filed an amended petition, later signed it after the Clerk directed him to do so, and that signed filing became the operative petition.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause. An order to show cause requires the respondent to explain why the requested relief should not be granted. The court stated that the amended petition did not appear to be without merit based on its face.
The Clerk was directed to serve the order and a magistrate-judge jurisdiction consent form on Matthew McVay and the California Attorney General’s Office, and to mail the order to Garcia. McVay had 28 days to state whether he consented to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge. The order stated that declining consent would result in reassignment to a district judge and would have no adverse consequences.
McVay was ordered, within 60 days, either to file an answer meeting the requirements for federal habeas cases and include relevant portions of the state-court record, or to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. Garcia could file a response to an answer within 28 days after receiving it. For a dismissal motion, Garcia could file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 28 days, and McVay could file a reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition.
Additional Requirements and Ruling
The order stated that Garcia was responsible for prosecuting the case, promptly reporting any address change, complying with court orders, and serving copies of his court communications on counsel for McVay. It also stated that reasonable extensions could be granted for good cause if requested on or before the relevant deadline.
Judge Donna M. Ryu did not rule on the merits of Garcia’s habeas claims. The order instead set the case’s next procedural steps and required McVay to answer or raise procedural grounds for dismissal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.