Smith v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Dispositive Motion due by 6/14/2013. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/11/13. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2013) Modified on 3/11/2013 (cl, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

*E-Filed 3/11/13*

4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

DARRYL B. SMITH,

13
14
15

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

16

No. C 12-5890 RS (PR)

Petitioner,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden,
Respondent.

17

/

18

INTRODUCTION

19
20

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a pro se

21

state prisoner. The petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243

22

and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The filing fee has been paid.

23

Respondent shall file an answer or dispositive motion on or before June 15, 2013, unless

24

an extension is granted.

25

BACKGROUND

26

According to the petition, in 2012, petitioner pleaded guilty in the San Francisco

27
28

County Superior Court to a charge of second degree robbery. He received a sentence of 13
No. C 12-5890 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

years in state prison.
DISCUSSION

2
3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

8

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

9

thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

10

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

11

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

12

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that (1) defense counsel

13

rendered ineffective assistance; and (2) his mental illness rendered his plea constitutionally

14

invalid. When liberally construed, these claims appear to be cognizable on federal habeas

15

review.

16
17

CONCLUSION
1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

18

attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the

19

State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.

20

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

21

days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

22

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not

23

be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer

24

and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have

25

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

26

petition.

27
28
2

No. C 12-5890 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse

2

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

3

answer is filed.

4

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

5

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory

6

Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files

7

such a motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or

8

statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

9

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of

10
11
12
13

the date any opposition is filed.
5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on
respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel.
6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

14

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s

15

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for

16

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

17
18
19
20

7. Upon a 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 11, 2013
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

No. C 12-5890 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE