1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\NLS\07cv17-Respond.wpd, 1117
-1-
07cv0017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KEVIN LOMACK,
Civil No.
07cv0017-L (NLS)
Petitioner,
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO
PETITION (28 U.S.C. § 2254)
v.
L. E. SCRIBNER, Warden,
Respondent.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing petitions
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and upon a preliminary review of the
Petition, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of this Court shall promptly (a) serve a copy of the Petition and a copy of
this Order on the Attorney General for the State of California, or his authorized agent; and
(b) serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner.
2. If Respondent contends the Petition can be decided without the Court’s reaching the
merits of Petitioner’s claims (e.g., because Respondent contends Petitioner has failed to exhaust
any state remedies as to any ground for relief alleged in the Petition, or that the Petition is barred
by the statute of limitations, or that the Petition is subject to dismissal under Rule 9 of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases, or that all of the claims are procedurally defaulted, or that Petitioner
Case 3:07-cv-00017-L-WMC Document 4 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 1 of 3
Lomack v. Scribner
Doc. 4
Dockets.Justia.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 If Respondent contends Petitioner has failed to exhaust any state remedies as to any ground for relief alleged in
the Petition, the motion to dismiss shall also specify the state remedies still available to Petitioner.
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\NLS\07cv17-Respond.wpd, 1117
-2-
07cv0017
is not in custody), Respondent shall file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases no later than February 26, 2007. The motion to dism