Deleon v. Phillips
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-01862
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Deleon v. Phillips, Chief Magistrate Judge Ryu ordered a response to Alejandro Deleon’s petition challenging his state custody and set briefing deadlines.
Alejandro A. Deleon and Bryan D. Phillips, with further responsibilities assigned to their representatives and the Clerk of Court.
What happened
Deleon v. Phillips concerns Alejandro A. Deleon’s petition asking a federal court to review his state custody. The court said the petition did not appear meritless on its face and ordered it served on Bryan D. Phillips, the respondent.
Phillips must either answer the petition within 60 days or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Deleon may respond to an answer within 28 days or oppose a dismissal motion within 28 days. The order also required the parties to address whether they consent to having a magistrate judge handle the case, and it reminded Deleon of his responsibilities as a self-represented litigant.
Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu issued the order to show cause on June 27, 2023. The order did not decide whether Deleon is entitled to relief; it set the next steps for the case.
The detailed version
- Deleon v. Phillips · No. 4:23-cv-01862
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 27, 2023
Background
Alejandro A. Deleon, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state custody. He paid the full filing fee. The court stated that the petition did not appear meritless on its face.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause, which requires the respondent to explain why the requested relief should not be granted. The Clerk was directed to serve the order and petition on Bryan D. Phillips, identified in the caption as the Acting Warden, and on the California Attorney General’s Office.
The respondent must, within 60 days, file an answer showing why relief should not be granted on the petition’s legally cognizable claims. Alternatively, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within that same period. If an answer is filed, Deleon may file a written response within 28 days after receiving it. If a dismissal motion is filed, Deleon may file an opposition or statement that he does not oppose the motion within 28 days, and the respondent may reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition.
The order also directed the respondent to state whether the respondent consents to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge. Consent was optional; if the respondent declines, the case will be reassigned to a district judge. The parties must follow the briefing schedule regardless of the respondent’s choice. Deleon was responsible for prosecuting the case, updating his address, complying with court orders, and serving the respondent’s lawyer with communications filed in court.
Disposition and Significance
The court did not grant or deny the petition and did not decide the underlying custody challenge. It only set procedures for the respondent’s answer or possible procedural dismissal motion and for further briefing. The order states that the case could be dismissed without prejudice if returned mail and the required follow-up communication show that Deleon has not maintained a current address.
The order was signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. It states that any appeal from proceedings conducted with the parties’ written consent would go directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.