Gralla v. Hedgepeth

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/20/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
No. C 11-01334 RS

MICHAEL GRALLA,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Petitioner,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

12

v.

13

ANTHONY HEDGEPETH,

14

Respondent.
____________________________________/

15
16
17

I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Michael Gralla filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus, per 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

18

The petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the

19

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

20
21

II. DISCUSSION
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

22

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

23

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A

24

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue an

25

order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears

26

from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

27

Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,

28
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th

2

Cir. 1990).

3

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims: (1) he was denied due process

4

because the trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing despite evidence raising a bona fide

5

doubt about his competency to stand trial and be sentenced; (2) his due process rights were violated

6

because he was not competent at the time of his trial, sentencing, or resentencing; and (3) he

7

received ineffective assistance of counsel. Liberally construed, the claims appear to be cognizable

8

on federal habeas review.
IV. CONCLUSION

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12

1. Counsel for petitioner shall serve a copy of this Order and the petition and all attachments
thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California.
2. Within ninety (90) days of receiving service of this Order, Respondent shall file an

13

answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing

14

cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims.

15

Respondent shall file with the answer a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously

16

have been transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

17

3. Petitioner shall file any traverse within thirty (30) days of the date the answer is filed.

18

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of receiving service of

19

this Order, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes

20

to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner

21

shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion

22

is filed, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15)

23

days of the date any opposition is filed.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: 8/20/12
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

2