(HC) Khadijah Ghafur v. The People of the State of California, 1:13-cv-01282

Ghafur is a state prisoner filing a 28 U.S.C. §2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Eastern District of California; petition filed July 29, 2013.
Court issued OSC Aug 16, 2013 for untimeliness and asked petitioner to respond within 30 days; response filed Sept 11, 2013 asserting actual innocence and timeliness grounds.
Petitioner argued actual innocence as an exception to the one-year limit and that new evidence could render the petition timely.
Court cannot determine timeliness on the current record and seeks the state court record for review of timeliness.
Petitioner moved to amend caption to name the proper respondent; after review, the court grants the amendment and substitutes respondents Larry Perkins and Rick Chavez, Fresno County Probation Office, deleting The People of the State of California.
Court orders respondent to file a response within 60 days and sets briefing and related procedural schedules; consents/declines to magistrate jurisdiction must be returned.
Clerk directed to serve order on the Attorney General or representative; petitioner’s motion to amend caption granted; proceedings remain on the record with specified timelines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of petition under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1) and actual innocence.	Ghafur argues actual innocence as exception to limitations and timely filing based on discovered evidence.	Respondent argues timeliness cannot be determined from current record; merits review pending state court record.	Timeliness cannot be determined from current record; state-court record must be lodged for review.
Proper respondent in the habeas action.	Ghafur asserts need to name correct respondents.	Respondent (as identified) is not proper; must identify actual government official respondents.	Caption amended to substitute Larry Perkins and Rick Chavez as proper respondents.
Whether the petition requires respondent to file a response and briefing schedule.		Respondent must respond within 60 days, either with an Answer or a Motion to Dismiss.	Respondent ordered to file a response within 60 days with briefing schedule and related procedures.
Procedural steps for briefing and consent to magistrate jurisdiction.		Extensions and briefs to be filed per Local Rules; consent/decline forms to be returned.	Bringing the matter within a structured briefing schedule and consent process; forms to be returned.

Cluchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985) (court may fix time for filing a response under Rule 4 in habeas cases)
White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1989) (summary dismissal procedures and timing considerations in habeas petitions)