Zepeda-Onofre v. Gonzales

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AUGUSTIN ZEPEDA-ONOFRE,
Petitioner,
v.
ANDRE GONZALES, Warden,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-cv-02547-AMO (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; AND
TERMINATING AS MOOT PENDING
MOTION
Re: Dkt. No. 4
Petitioner Augustin Zepeda-Onofre, a state prisoner, has filed this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, representing himself. He has paid the $5.00 filing
fee. It does not appear from the face of the petition that it is without merit. Good cause appearing,
the Court hereby issues the following orders:
1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order upon Respondent and
Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email
addresses: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov and SFAGDocketing@doj.ca.gov. The 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 the petitioner.
2. Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon the petitioner, within sixty
(60) days of the issuance of this Order, an Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be
issued. Respondent shall file with the Answer a copy of all portions of the relevant state records
that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues
presented by the petition.
3. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse
with the Court and serving it on Respondent within sixty (60) days of his receipt of the Answer.
Should the petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision
Case 4:26-cv-02547-AMO Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
sixty (60) days after the date the petitioner is served with Respondent’s Answer.
4. Respondent may file with this Court and serve upon the petitioner, within sixty
(60) days of the issuance of this Order, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an
Answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, the petitioner shall file with the Court and serve
on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion within sixty (60) days
of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on the petitioner a
reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition.
5. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. The 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 self-represented party
whose address changes while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of
address specifying the new address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss a self-represented
action without prejudice when: (1) mail directed to the self-represented 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 self-represented party indicating a current address.
See L.R. 3-11(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b)
applicable in habeas cases).
The 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 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.
7. The petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is TERMINATED
AS MOOT because he has already paid the full filing fee. Dkt. 4.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
United States District Judge
October 13, 2026
Case 4:26-cv-02547-AMO Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2