Winters v. Sanchez ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PAUL L. WINTERS, Case No. 23-cv-06093-AMO (PR) 8 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 JEFFREY MACOMBER, Secretary of California Department of Corrections and 11 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Respondent. 12 Petitioner Paul L. Winters, a state parolee who is currently being held at Santa Rita Jail, has 13 filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the full 14 filing fee. Dkt. 2. 15 The rules governing relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 require a person in custody pursuant to 16 the judgment of a state court to name the “‘state officer having custody’” of him as the respondent. 17 Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Rule 2(a) of the Rules 18 Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254). This person typically is the warden of the 19 facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. See Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 20 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Failure to name the petitioner’s custodian as a respondent deprives 21 federal courts of personal jurisdiction, see id., but courts are to liberally construe the petition’s 22 when considering whether the proper respondent has been named. See Belgarde v. Montana, 123 23 F.3d 1210, 1214 (9th Cir. 1997). The “‘state officer having custody’” also may include “‘the chief 24 officer in charge of state penal institutions.’” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894 (quoting Rule 2(a) 25 advisory committee’s note). 26 Here, Winters has named as Respondents the California Department of Corrections and 27 1 respondent should be “‘the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions,’” who has “custody” 2 of Winters, a parolee. See Rule 2(a) advisory committee’s note; Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a). 3 Accordingly, Secretary of CDCR Jeffrey Macomber is substituted as the respondent in this action 4 in place of Sheriff Sanchez and the CDCR. See Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894. 5 It does not appear from the face of the petition that it is without merit. Good cause 6 appearing, the Court hereby issues the following orders: 7 The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order upon Respondent and Respondent’s 8 attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email addresses: 9 SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov and docketingsfawt@doj.ca.gov. The petition and the exhibits 10 thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of California. 11 The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order on the petitioner. 12 1. The respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon the petitioner, within sixty 13 (60) days of the issuance of this Order, an Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the 14 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be 15 issued. The respondent shall file with the Answer a copy of all portions of the relevant state 16 records that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues 17 presented by the petition. 18 2. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse 19 with the Court and serving it on the respondent within sixty (60) days of his receipt of the 20 Answer. Should the petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for 21 decision sixty (60) days after the date the petitioner is served with the respondent’s Answer. 22 3. The respondent may file with this Court and serve upon the petitioner, within sixty 23 (60) days of the issuance of this Order, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 24 Answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 25 2254 Cases. If the respondent files such a motion, the petitioner shall file with the Court and serve 26 on the respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion within sixty (60) 27 days of receipt of the motion, and the respondent shall file with the Court and serve on the 1 4. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. The petitioner must keep 2 || the Court and the respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s 3 orders in a timely fashion. Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro 4 || se whose address changes while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of 5 address specifying the new address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss a pro se action 6 || without prejudice when: (1) mail directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the 7 || Court as not deliverable, and (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written 8 communication from the pro se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b); see also 9 Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (Sth Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 10 The petitioner must also serve on the respondent’s counsel all communications with the 11 Court by mailing a true copy of the document to the respondent’s counsel. 12 5. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be 5 13 granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: February 12, 2024 Mracek hah = 8 ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28