Law v. Martinez
- Malle
- 5:23-cv-01727
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Law v. Martinez, Judge Malle ordered the respondent to answer Audry Wayne Law’s habeas petition or seek dismissal on procedural grounds.
Audry Wayne Law must respond to any answer or motion to dismiss and comply with the court’s filing, service, and address requirements. Luis Martinez must file either an answer with relevant state records or a motion to dismiss within 60 days.
What happened
Law v. Martinez concerns Audry Wayne Law’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a state prisoner to challenge custody in federal court. The court said the petition did not appear meritless on its face and issued an order requiring a response.
The court ordered Luis Martinez, the acting warden, to file an answer within 60 days or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead. The order also required relevant state records to be submitted with an answer and set deadlines for any opposition and reply.
Judge Malle also instructed Law to meet filing and service requirements, keep the court informed of any address change, and request extensions before deadlines expire. The order did not decide whether Law is entitled to habeas relief.
The detailed version
- Law v. Martinez · No. 5:23-cv-01727
- Malle
- July 13, 2023
Background
Audry Wayne Law, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A habeas petition is a request for a court order addressing allegedly unlawful custody. Law 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 writ should not be issued. The Clerk was directed to serve the order on Luis Martinez, identified as the acting warden, and on the Attorney General of California as respondent’s attorney.
Within 60 days after the order’s issuance, Martinez must either:
- file an answer complying with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and include relevant previously transcribed state-court records; or - file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer.
If Martinez files an answer, Law may file a response called a traverse. If Martinez files a motion to dismiss, Law must file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 60 days after receiving the motion, and Martinez may file a reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition.
Other instructions and effect
The court stated that Law is responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court and respondent informed of address changes, complying with court orders in a timely manner, and mailing respondent’s counsel a true copy of communications filed with the court. The court also stated that, under the cited local rule, a pro se action may be dismissed without prejudice if court mail is returned as undeliverable and the court receives no written communication showing a current address within 60 days after the return. The court said that reasonable extensions may be granted for good cause when requested on or before the deadline.
Judge Gash Malle’s order was procedural. It directed the next steps in the case and did not decide the merits of Law’s habeas petition or determine whether habeas relief should be granted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.