Rivera v. Jusino
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:23-cv-04635
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Rivera v. Jusino, Judge Rogers ordered a response to Rivera’s habeas petition without deciding its merits.
Juana G. Rivera, Thahesha Jusino as the identified respondent, and the government attorneys responsible for responding to the petition.
What happened
Juana G. Rivera, a federal prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition challenging her detention under a federal law. The petition names Thahesha Jusino, identified as the warden, as respondent.
The court said the petition did not appear plainly meritless and ordered the government to respond within 60 days. The government may instead file a motion raising procedural issues. Rivera may reply within the deadlines listed in the order.
Judge Yvonne Rogers issued an order to show cause, which begins the response process but does not decide whether Rivera is entitled to relief. The court also reminded Rivera to keep her address current and follow filing and service requirements.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. Jusino · No. 4:23-cv-04635
- Yvonne Rogers
- Dec. 4, 2023
Background
Juana G. Rivera, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asking for habeas relief, a court process for challenging unlawful custody. She filed without a lawyer and paid the full filing fee. Thahesha Jusino is identified as the warden and the respondent.
Court’s Action
The court stated that the petition did not appear plainly without merit. It therefore issued an order to show cause and directed the clerk to serve the order on Jusino and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California.
The respondent must file and serve an answer within 60 days, explaining why the requested relief should not be granted based on Rivera’s claims, and must provide relevant exhibits. Instead of an answer, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period. If that happens, Rivera may file an opposition or state that she does not oppose the motion within 28 days, and the respondent may reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition.
Rivera may file a written response to an answer within 28 days after receiving it. If she does not, the petition will be considered ready for decision after that period. The court also ordered Rivera to keep the court and the respondent informed of any address change, follow court orders promptly, and send the respondent’s lawyer copies of her court communications. The court stated that a case filed without a lawyer may be dismissed without prejudice under the cited local rule if court mail is returned as undeliverable and no updated address is provided within 60 days.
Disposition and Effect
Judge Yvonne Rogers issued an order to show cause; the order does not decide the merits of Rivera’s petition and does not grant or deny habeas relief. It sets deadlines for the respondent’s answer or procedural motion and for Rivera’s possible responses. The court stated that reasonable extensions may be granted for good cause when requested by the applicable deadline.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.