Franklin v. Horton

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

BRYCE FRANKLIN,

Petitioner,

vs. No. CV 19-00450 JB/KRS

WARDEN HORTON, et al.,

Respondents.

ORDER ON MOTION TO FILE RESPONSE THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Respondents to File a Response (Doc. 5) filed by Petitioner, Bryce Franklin. The Court denies the Motion as premature. Because Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding pro se, the Court is obligated to conduct a preliminary screening of the Petition. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. Whenever a prisoner brings a proceeding seeking habeas corpus relief, the Court is obligated to screen the prisoner’s petition. Rule 4 states: If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.

Requests for service of process or for Respondents to answer are premature and unavailable prior to the Court’s completion of its screening obligation. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 213-214 (2007). If Petitioner’s Petition is not dismissed on initial screening, the Court will enter further orders governing service of process and answers or responses by Respondents IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Respondents to File a Response (Doc. 5) is DENIED as premature.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE