Holland v. Jonsen
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:24-cv-00421
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Holland v. Jonsen, Judge Rogers ordered a response to Holland’s prison petition while denying his request for appointed counsel without prejudice.
Christopher Melvin Holland’s federal custody petition will proceed to a response stage, while his request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice; Sheriff Robert Jonsen must respond or seek dismissal on procedural grounds.
What happened
In Holland v. Jonsen, Christopher Melvin Holland, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Main Jail Complex, filed a petition asking the federal court to review his custody under a federal law for state prisoners.
The court ordered Sheriff Robert Jonsen to respond within 60 days and provide relevant state-court records. Holland may reply within 60 days after receiving that response. Jonsen may instead file a motion asking the court to dismiss the petition for procedural reasons.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Holland’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice and ended the docket entry containing that request. The order did not decide whether Holland is entitled to relief; the court said it would appoint counsel on its own if an evidentiary hearing later becomes necessary.
The detailed version
- Holland v. Jonsen · No. 4:24-cv-00421
- Yvonne Rogers
- Mar. 19, 2024
Background
Christopher Melvin Holland, identified as an inmate at the Santa Clara County Main Jail Complex, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute allowing a state prisoner to ask a federal court to review the legality of custody. He paid the $5.00 filing fee. The court stated that the petition did not appear, based on its face, to be without merit.
Orders concerning the petition
The court issued an order requiring a response from Sheriff Robert Jonsen. The Clerk was directed to serve the order on Jonsen and the Attorney General of California, and to mail a copy to Holland.
Jonsen must file and serve an answer within 60 days after the order’s issuance. The answer must comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and explain why the requested writ should not issue. Jonsen must also file relevant portions of previously transcribed state records.
Holland may respond by filing and serving a traverse within 60 days after receiving the answer. If he does not respond, the petition will be treated as submitted for decision 60 days after service of the answer. Instead of an answer, Jonsen may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within 60 days. If that occurs, Holland has 60 days to file an opposition or statement that he does not oppose the motion, and Jonsen has 14 days after receiving any opposition to file a reply.
Other directives and ruling
The court stated that Holland is responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court and Jonsen informed of any address change, complying with court orders, and serving Jonsen’s counsel with copies of his communications to the court. The court also stated that requests for reasonable extensions of time will be granted upon a showing of good cause if filed by the relevant deadline.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Holland’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. The court explained that counsel generally is not appointed in a federal prisoner's custody case unless an evidentiary hearing is required, and stated that it would appoint counsel on its own motion if such a hearing later becomes necessary. The order terminated Docket No. 5. It did not decide the merits of Holland’s petition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.