Dunbar v. Robertson

Background

Eddie Dunbar, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute allowing a state prisoner to challenge custody in federal court. He also applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the court’s filing fees. Jim Robertson is identified as the warden and respondent.

Rulings and next steps

The court granted Dunbar’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee based on his affidavit of poverty. The court also stated that the petition did not appear plainly meritless and directed Robertson to respond.

Within 60 days after the order’s issuance, Robertson must file and serve an answer complying with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and provide relevant state-court records. Alternatively, Robertson may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within that same 60-day period. If Robertson files an answer, Dunbar may file a traverse—a written response—within 28 days after receiving it. If Robertson files a motion to dismiss, Dunbar has 28 days to oppose it or state that he does not oppose it, and Robertson then has 14 days to reply to any opposition.

The order also directs Dunbar to prosecute the case, keep the court and Robertson informed of address changes, comply with court deadlines, and send Robertson’s counsel copies of communications filed with the court. The order says that, under the local rule, a case brought without a lawyer may be dismissed without prejudice if court mail is returned as undeliverable and the party does not provide a current address within 60 days.

What the order did not decide

The court did not decide the merits of Dunbar’s petition or determine whether a writ should issue. It only granted permission to proceed without fees and began the process for Robertson to answer or seek dismissal. The judge’s name is not identified clearly in the supplied opinion text.