Gonzalez v. McDowell
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:22-cv-04057
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gonzalez v. McDowell, Judge Seeborg reopened the habeas case, vacated its dismissal, and ordered a response after a possible deadline error.
Jose Francisco Gonzalez’s federal habeas case was reopened, and Neil McDowell was required to respond regarding the motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Gonzalez v. McDowell, the court reopened Jose Francisco Gonzalez’s federal habeas case and vacated the judgment and dismissal order. The case had been dismissed after Neil McDowell argued that Gonzalez’s petition was filed too late.
The court said the timeliness calculation may have been wrong because the Supreme Court temporarily extended the deadline for seeking review from 90 days to 150 days in certain cases. The court directed McDowell to say whether he would revise, continue, or withdraw the motion to dismiss.
Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg ordered McDowell to respond by May 22, 2023. The order did not decide whether the petition was timely or reach the underlying habeas claims.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. McDowell · No. 3:22-cv-04057
- Richard Seeborg
- Apr. 20, 2023
Background
Jose Francisco Gonzalez filed this federal habeas action. Respondent Neil McDowell had obtained dismissal based on the argument that Gonzalez’s petition was untimely, meaning it was filed after the applicable deadline.
The timeliness calculation partly relied on the belief that Gonzalez had 90 days to file a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the lower court decision. The opinion explains that, on March 19, 2020, the Supreme Court temporarily extended that period to 150 days in all cases. The modification remained in effect until July 19, 2021.
Court’s action
The court reopened the action, directed the Clerk to modify the docket, and vacated the judgment and the order of dismissal. Because the temporary extension may affect whether Gonzalez’s petition was timely, the court stated that the petition may not be untimely.
The court ordered McDowell to file a notice by May 22, 2023, stating whether he wished to file a revised motion to dismiss, proceed with the initial motion, or withdraw the initial motion. If McDowell chose to file a revised motion, the court would set a new deadline.
What the order did not decide
The order did not determine whether Gonzalez’s petition was timely and did not decide the underlying habeas claims. It reopened the case so the timeliness issue could be addressed in light of the Supreme Court’s temporary deadline extension.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.