Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01302/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01302-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY L. HOLT, Jr.,

Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN L. FRINK, Warden

Respondent.

___________________________________/

No. C-15-01302 EMC

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO SHOW

CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. See Docket No. 1. Venue is proper here because Petitioner was convicted in

Alameda County, which is in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). His petition is now before the

court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner pleaded no contest to the following California state

crimes: (1) assault with a semiautomatic firearm; (2) use of a firearm; (3) possession of a firearm

with a prior juvenile conviction; and (4) attempt to evade a peace officer while driving recklessly. 

Docket No. 1. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal because he claims he “was not aware that a no

contest plea could be challenged on collateral grounds.” Id. Petitioner subsequently sought habeas

corpus relief at all three levels of the California state courts. Id. 

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-01302-EMC Document 3 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

DISCUSSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cir. 1990). 

The petition alleges the following claims: (1) trial court unconstitutionally applied a

sentencing enhancement without sufficient factual support; (2) trial counsel provided ineffective

assistance by failing to object to petitioner’s “unconstitutional” sentence; (3) trial court

unconstitutionally refused to allow petitioner to discharge his trial counsel; (4) trial court failed to

give Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) advisements before accepting stipulation; and (5) trial

counsel provided ineffective assistance by stipulating to factual allegations at preliminary hearing

without Petitioner’s consent. These claims are sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION

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

thereto upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner.

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty (60) days of

the issuance of this Order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should

not be issued. Respondent must file with the answer a copy of all portions of the

court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and that are relevant to a

determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

Case 3:15-cv-01302-EMC Document 3 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

3. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with

the court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the

answer. 

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer,

as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, it is due sixty (60) days from

the date this Order is issued. If a motion is filed, Petitioner shall file with the court

and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty

(30) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent may file with the court and serve

on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the filing of any opposition.

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. Petitioner must promptly keep the

court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a

timely fashion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2015

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01302-EMC Document 3 Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 3