ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
This habeas corpus action is submitted for decision on respondent's motion to dismiss filed November 3, 2014, premised on petitioner's alleged failure to exhaust state court remedies. The court requires additional exhibits and briefing before it can reach a decision.
Review of the state court record lodged by respondent demonstrates that it does not include copies of the California Supreme Court's orders dated January 15, 2014 (see Lodg. Doc. No. 4); April 16, 2014 (see Lodg. Doc. No. 6); or September 10, 2014 (see Lodg. Doc. No. 12). Instead, respondent has submitted docket reports from the California Supreme Court indicating that petitioner's petitions were denied on those dates. In the experience of the undersigned, it is common practice in federal habeas cases for Deputies Attorney General to lodge California Supreme Court docket reports in lieu of the actual orders denying habeas petitions.2 This practice does not permit the court to perform the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254.3
The undersigned is aware from experience that California Supreme Court docket sheets generally do reflect the content of orders denying habeas relief, including any citation to a procedural bar. However, the docket reports are not the source documents. In light of this court's duty to review what the state court actually did, see Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1399 (2011), the lodged state court record must include all state court orders denying relief. A docket report or similar substitute is not sufficient. Therefore, counsel for respondent will be directed to file (or lodge in paper) and serve, copies of the California Supreme Court's orders dated January 15, 2014, April 16, 2014, and September 10, 2014, denying Mr. Caridad's habeas petitions.
In addition, the court's review of the record indicates that the Sacramento County Superior Court's recommitment orders for the years June 7, 2010 to June 7, 2011, and June 7, 2011 to June 7, 2012, were signed on the same date — January 6, 2012 — as the recommitment order which respondent asserts is challenged herein (governing the commitment period June 7, 2012 to June 7, 2013).4 See Lodged Doc. No. 1 (Clerk's Transcript on Appeal) at 213-15. Counsel for respondent is directed to file and serve a supplemental brief that addresses the effect, if any, of the contemporaneous signing of these orders on the validity of petitioner's recommitment for the period June 7, 2012 to June 7, 2013. Among other things, respondent should discuss the implications of the post-hoc authorization of petitioner's commitment from June 7, 2010 until January 6, 2012 for petitioner's custodial status at the time his continued commitment through June 7, 2013 was authorized.
Respondent's supplemental brief should also expand upon the argument that petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies. Respondent's motion, see ECF No. 40 at 3, references only the wording of petitioner's "Ground One" claim set forth in his October 3, 2013 petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the California Supreme Court, Case No. S213786. See Lodg. Doc. No. 3 at 3-4. However, petitioner's "supporting facts" set forth therein reflect some commonality with petitioner's legal claims before this court, as previously construed by the undersigned. See ECF No. 32 at 2. Accordingly, respondent's supplemental brief should compare the substantive content of petitioner's "supporting facts" set forth in his October 3, 2013 California Supreme Court habeas petition (Case No. S213786) with the substance of petitioner's instant federal claims, and discuss the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in denying the petition (e.g., if the order denying the petition, like the docket entry, summarily cites People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474, and In re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304, respondent shall address the significance of those citations).
Finally, counsel for respondent shall address whether the instant federal habeas petition is: (a) moot (the instant petition challenges one or more expired recommitment order), see e.g. Qawi v. Graziani, 2004 WL 725376, *1-2 (N.D. Cal. 2004); and/or (2) meets the "in custody" requirement for purposes of habeas review (the instant petition was filed after expiration of petitioner's 2012-13 recommitment order), see e.g. Townsend v. King, 2014 WL 2197553, *2-3 (E.D. Cal. 2014).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Counsel for respondent shall, within twenty-one (21) days after the filing date of this order, file (or lodge) the following documents with this court, and serve the same on petitioner: Copies of the California Supreme Court's orders dated January 15, 2014, April 16, 2014, and September 10, 2014, denying Mr. Caridad's habeas petitions.
2. Also within twenty-one (21) days after the filing date of this order, counsel for respondent shall file and serve a supplemental brief in support of respondent's motion to dismiss that:
(i) Addresses the effect, if any, of the contemporaneous signing on January 6, 2012 of petitioner's recommitment orders for the periods June 7, 2010 to June 7, 2011; June 7, 2011 to June 7, 2012; and June 7, 2012 to June 7, 2013, on the validity of petitioner's commitment prior to January 6, 2012 and for the period June 7, 2012 to June 7, 2013;
(ii) Addresses whether petitioner exhausted any of his instant federal claims based on the content of the "supporting facts" set forth in his October 3, 2013 California Supreme Court habeas petition (Case No. S213786); and
(iii) Addresses whether petitioner's instant federal habeas petition is moot and/or meets the "in custody" requirement.
3. Petitioner may, within fourteen (14) days after service of respondent's supplemental brief and exhibits, file and serve a supplemental opposition.
4. Alternatively, counsel for respondent may, within seven days after the filing date of this order, request that the court vacate the pending motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended motion to dismiss within thirty days. In this event, petitioner shall refrain from filing any response pending further order of the court.
