Winters v. Sanchez
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-06093
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Winters v. Macomber, Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered the respondent to answer Paul L. Winters’s petition challenging state custody after replacing the originally named respondents.
Paul L. Winters and Jeffrey Macomber, the substituted respondent; the order also removes the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Sheriff Sanchez as respondents.
What happened
Winters v. Macomber concerns Paul L. Winters’s petition challenging his state custody under federal habeas law. The order says Winters is a state parolee being held at Santa Rita Jail and paid the filing fee.
The court found that the petition did not appear plainly meritless. It replaced the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Sheriff Sanchez with Secretary Jeffrey Macomber as the respondent because the petition must name the state official responsible for the petitioner’s custody.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered Macomber to file an answer within 60 days, or instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. The order also set deadlines for Winters to respond, required him to keep the court informed of address changes, and directed the parties to serve their filings on each other.
The detailed version
- Winters v. Sanchez · No. 3:23-cv-06093
- Martinez-Olguin
- Feb. 12, 2024
Background
Paul L. Winters filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state custody. The order describes Winters as a state parolee currently being held at Santa Rita Jail. He paid the full filing fee.
The petition originally named the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Sheriff Sanchez as respondents. The court explained that a person seeking relief under § 2254 generally must name the state official who has custody of him. That official is usually the warden of the facility, but may also be the chief officer in charge of the state prison system.
Respondent substitution
The court substituted Jeffrey Macomber, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as the respondent in place of Sheriff Sanchez and the Department. The court cited the rule governing respondents in § 2254 cases and related federal procedural rules.
Order to show cause and deadlines
The court stated that the petition did not appear meritless on its face. It therefore ordered the respondent to file and serve an answer within 60 days. The answer must explain why the requested writ should not issue and include relevant portions of the previously transcribed state-court record.
The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period. If that occurs, Winters must file an opposition or statement that he does not oppose the motion within 60 days after receiving it. If the respondent files an answer, Winters may file a response within 60 days after receiving the answer. If he does not respond, the petition will be treated as ready for decision after that period.
The order also states that Winters is responsible for prosecuting the case, must timely follow court orders, must notify the court and respondent’s counsel of any address change, and must serve respondent’s counsel with communications filed with the court. The court may dismiss a self-represented case without prejudice if returned mail is not followed by a written address update within 60 days. The court stated that timely requests for reasonable extensions may be granted upon a showing of good cause.
Disposition
This order does not decide whether Winters is entitled to relief on the substance of his petition. It requires the respondent to answer or raise procedural grounds for dismissal and sets the next filing deadlines.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.