Brown v. Schuyler
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-02649
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Brown v. Schuyler, Judge Rogers ordered the respondent to answer or seek procedural dismissal after the Ninth Circuit reversed the earlier dismissal.
Gregory L. Brown must meet the response, service, and address-update requirements described in the order. Charles Schuyler, as respondent, must file an answer or a procedural motion within 60 days and provide relevant state records.
What happened
Gregory L. Brown, representing himself, filed a petition asking the federal court to review his state custody. The court had previously dismissed it as a repeat petition because Brown had not obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit to proceed.
The Ninth Circuit reversed and sent the case back, explaining that Brown’s claims were not ready for review when he filed his earlier petitions and therefore should not have been treated as repeat petitions. The petition is now before the district court again.
The court ordered Charles Schuyler, the acting warden and respondent, to answer within 60 days or file a motion seeking dismissal on procedural grounds instead. Brown may respond to an answer or dismissal motion. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers did not decide whether the petition should ultimately be granted.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Schuyler · No. 4:21-cv-02649
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 18, 2023
Background
Gregory L. Brown filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to issue a writ of habeas corpus, which is a court order addressing allegedly unlawful state custody. Brown was proceeding without a lawyer. On May 6, 2021, the court dismissed the petition as a second or successive petition because Brown had not obtained an order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing the district court to consider it. Brown appealed, and the district court granted a certificate of appealability.
Appellate ruling and return to district court
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissals in this case and in an earlier related proceeding. In an opinion filed August 3, 2023, the Ninth Circuit held that Brown’s petitions raised claims that were not ready for court review when he filed his prior petitions. It therefore reversed the district court’s judgments and sent the matters back. The Ninth Circuit’s mandate issued on August 25, 2023.
Order
The district court stated that the petition did not appear from its face to be without merit and issued an order requiring a response. The clerk was directed to serve the order and petition on the respondent and the respondent’s lawyer, the Attorney General of California.
Charles Schuyler was ordered to file and serve an answer complying with Rule 5 of the rules governing Section 2254 cases within 60 days after the order’s issuance. The answer must explain why the writ should not issue and include relevant portions of the previously transcribed state-court record. Instead of an answer, Schuyler may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period. If that occurs, Brown has 60 days after receiving the motion to file an opposition or state that he does not oppose it; Schuyler may then file a reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition.
If Brown responds to an answer, he must file a written response called a traverse within 60 days after receiving the answer. The court also directed Brown to keep the court and respondent informed of any address change, comply with court orders, and serve respondent’s counsel with copies of his court communications. The order states that, under the applicable local rule, a pro se case may be dismissed without prejudice if court mail is returned as undeliverable and Brown does not provide a current address within 60 days. The court stated that extensions may be granted for good cause when requested by the deadline.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers did not rule on the ultimate merits of Brown’s habeas petition. This order sets the next steps for the case after the Ninth Circuit’s reversal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.