Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02870/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02870-0/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)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY ALBERT TOTI,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL MARTEL,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-02870-RS (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition for 

habeas relief is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

The petition states cognizable claims. Respondent shall file a response to the 

petition on or before October 15, 2018, unless an extension is granted. 

BACKGROUND

In 2012, a Marin County Superior Court jury convicted petitioner of sodomy of a 

child, oral copulation with a child, and lewd acts on a child. In 2013, a sentence of 25

years to life was imposed.

Petitioner sought but was denied on state judicial review. This federal habeas 

petition followed. 

Case 3:18-cv-02870-RS Document 3 Filed 08/02/18 Page 1 of 3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

CASE NO. 18-cv-02870-RS

2

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

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). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims defense counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance in the ways listed in the petition. When liberally construed, the 

petition states cognizable claims. 

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition (Dkt. No. 1) and all 

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

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

2. On or before October 15, 2018, respondent shall file with the Court and serve 

on petitioner 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 granted 

based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve 

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

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

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

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

answer is filed. 

Case 3:18-cv-02870-RS Document 3 Filed 08/02/18 Page 2 of 3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

CASE NO. 18-cv-02870-RS

3

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

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, on or before October 15, 2018, a 

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

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

petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of 

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

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

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

Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this 

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

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.

8. The filing fee has been paid. (Dkt. No. 1.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August ___, 2018

_________________________

 RICHARD SEEBORG

 United States District Judge

1

Case 3:18-cv-02870-RS Document 3 Filed 08/02/18 Page 3 of 3