Chavez v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANNETTE CHRISTINA CHAVEZ,

Case No. 20-cv-04432-YGR (PR)

Petitioner,

SECOND ORDER DIRECTING v.

RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE

WARDEN GARCIA, Warden, WHY THE AMENDED PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED

Respondent.

This federal habeas corpus action was dismissed because Petitioner failed to respond to notices from the Clerk of the Court to file a timely completed habeas corpus petition form along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). She then filed her completed habeas corpus petition form and perfected her IFP application. See Dkts. 12, 13. Prison records confirmed that Petitioner’s delay in filing such documents was caused by a lack of notice because the prison “d[id] not have any record of receiving such correspondence from the courts.” Dkt. 13 at 5. In an Order dated March 2, 2021, the Court construed Petitioner’s filings as a motion to reopen the instant action, granted the motion, and reopened the instant action. Dkt. 17. The Court directed Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. See id. To date, no answer to the petition has been filed. Instead, Clerk’s Office personnel has been informed that due to the ongoing pandemic and newly installed procedures, the United States Attorney’s Office did not receive notice of the Court’s March 2, 2021 Order. In any event, on May 14, 2021, Petitioner has filed a new petition, which Court construes as her “Amended Petition.” Dkt. 18. Because no answer has been filed, the Court grants Petitioner leave to file an Amended Petition.

It does not appear from the face of the Amended Petition that it is without merit. Good cause appearing, the Court hereby issues the following orders:

1. The Court grants Petitioner leave to file an Amended Petition. The Clerk shall docket the new petition as her “Amended Petition” and mark it as filed on May 14, 2021.

2. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order and the Amended Petition and all at the Northern District of California, at the following email addresses: (1) usacan.ecf @usdoj.gov; (2) sara.winslow @usdoj.gov; and (3) kathy.terry @usdoj.gov. The Amended Petition and the exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of || California. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order on Petitioner.

5 3. Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, no later than July || 26, 2021, an Answer responding to the allegations in the Amended Petition and showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all documents that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented. 9 4. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, Petitioner shall do so by filing a Traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent within sixty (60) days of Petitioner’s receipt of the Answer. Should Petitioner fail to do so, the Amended Petition will be deemed submitted 12 and ready for decision sixty (60) days after the date Petitioner is served with the Answer. 13 5. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the || Court and Respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s || orders in a timely fashion. Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro || se whose address changes while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of 17 address specifying the new address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss a pro se action S 18 without prejudice when: (1) mail directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (Sth Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). Petitioner must also serve on Respondent’s counsel all communications with the Court by mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel.

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2021 Coren bho

J E YVONNEGONZALEZ ROSERS ited States District Judge