Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00218/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00218-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACHUCO ANTHONY AGBALOG,

Petitioner,

v.

ANTHONY HEDGPETH,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-0218 SI

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Pachuco Anthony Agbalog, a prisoner at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California, has

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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.

BACKGROUND

According to Agbalog’s petition, he was convicted in Santa Clara Superior Court of rape by

force and unlawful sexual intercourse. He was sentenced on September 2, 2005, to 17 years in prison.

He appealed his conviction to the state court of appeal, which affirmed his conviction in 2006. Agbalog

apparently did not appeal to the California Supreme Court and has not filed any state habeas petitions.

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

Case 3:08-cv-00218-SI Document 3 Filed 02/25/08 Page 1 of 2
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

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). 

Before reaching the question whether petitioner’s underlying claims warrant a response from

the state, the Court notes that the petition may be procedurally flawed because it appears petitioner has

not exhausted his state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). The Court therefore orders

petitioner to show cause why his habeas petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust the

remedies available to him in the state courts. In so doing, petitioner should pay close attention to the

filing deadlines, as a one-year limitations period applies to his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner must file and serve upon respondent, on or before March

28, 2008, a brief showing cause why his habeas petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust

his state court remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2008 __________________________ 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00218-SI Document 3 Filed 02/25/08 Page 2 of 2