Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 8, 2023

Phillippi v. Warden, Kern Valley State Prison

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:23-cv-04403
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Phillippi v. Pfeiffer, Judge Rogers granted fee-free filing and ordered a response to the prisoner’s habeas petition challenging a disciplinary hearing.

Who this affects

Bruce Phillippi received permission to proceed without paying filing fees, and the respondent was required to answer the petition or file a procedural motion to dismiss. The court did not decide whether Phillippi is entitled to habeas relief.

What happened

Phillippi v. Pfeiffer concerns Bruce Phillippi’s petition challenging a January 19, 2022 disciplinary hearing at Pelican Bay State Prison. He filed the petition without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees.

The court granted that fee request because the petition did not appear meritless on its face. The case was not decided on whether Phillippi should receive habeas relief.

Judge Rogers ordered the respondent to answer within 60 days and provide relevant state records, or file a procedural motion to dismiss instead. Phillippi may respond within 60 days after receiving an answer or motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Phillippi v. Warden, Kern Valley State Prison · No. 4:23-cv-04403
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Nov. 8, 2023

Background

Bruce Phillippi, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a January 19, 2022 disciplinary hearing at Pelican Bay State Prison. He also applied to proceed without paying the court’s filing fees.

Court’s action

The court granted Phillippi’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. It stated that the petition did not appear meritless on its face and directed the respondent to show why the petition should not be granted. This was not a decision on the merits of Phillippi’s challenge or a ruling granting habeas relief.

The respondent must file and serve an answer within 60 days of the order’s issuance. The answer must comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and include previously transcribed portions of relevant state records. Instead of an answer, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period.

If the respondent files an answer, Phillippi may file and serve a response, called a traverse, within 60 days after receiving it. If the respondent files a motion to dismiss, Phillippi may file an opposition or state that he does not oppose the motion within 60 days after receiving it, and the respondent may file a reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition.

Other instructions and disposition

The order also instructed Phillippi to keep the court and respondent informed of any address change, comply with court orders, and serve respondent’s counsel with communications filed in the case. It noted that a pro se action may be dismissed without prejudice under the cited local rule if court mail is returned as undeliverable and the party does not provide an updated address within 60 days. The order terminated the docket entry concerning the fee application.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.