McCormack v. Jones
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-00232
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In McCormack v. Jones, Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered a response to a state prisoner’s habeas petition without deciding its merits.
Derek Steven McCormack and Gena Jones, the warden named as respondent; the order also directs service on the Attorney General of California as respondent’s attorney.
What happened
Derek Steven McCormack v. Gena Jones is a case in which McCormack, a state prisoner, filed a petition asking the federal court to review his custody under federal habeas law.
The court found that the petition did not appear meritless on its face and ordered service of the petition. Gena Jones must file an answer within 60 days or may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds; McCormack may then respond under the stated deadlines.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin issued an order to show cause on June 11, 2024. The order began the response process but did not decide whether McCormack is entitled to habeas relief.
The detailed version
- McCormack v. Jones · No. 3:24-cv-00232
- Martinez-Olguin
- June 11, 2024
Background
Derek Steven McCormack, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The opinion states that he paid the full filing fee. The court also stated that, based on the face of the petition, the petition did not appear to be without merit.
Court’s Orders
The court ordered the Clerk to serve the order on Gena Jones, identified in the caption as the warden, and on the Attorney General of California as the respondent’s attorney. The Clerk was also ordered to mail a copy of the order to McCormack.
Within 60 days after the order’s issuance, Jones must file and serve an answer meeting the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The answer must show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue and must include relevant portions of the previously transcribed state-court record.
Instead of an answer, Jones may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period. If that occurs, McCormack has 60 days after receiving the motion to file an opposition or a statement that he does not oppose it, and Jones may file a reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition.
If McCormack responds to an answer, he must file a traverse. If he does not do so, the petition will be treated as submitted and ready for decision 60 days after he is served with the answer. The order also requires McCormack to keep the court and respondent informed of any address change, follow court orders, and serve respondent’s counsel with copies of his communications to the court. Future extension requests must be submitted at least seven days before the relevant deadline.
Disposition and Significance
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin issued an order to show cause and directed the respondent to answer or file a procedural motion. The court did not grant or deny the habeas petition and did not decide whether McCormack is entitled to relief. The opinion also does not state the specific underlying grounds of the petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.