Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04197/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04197-0/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT ROSENBALM,

Petitioner,

v.

ED FOULK, 

CEO of Napa State Hospital,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-4197 SI (pr)

ORDER FOR STATUS REPORT

FROM RESPONDENT 

Vincent Rosenbalm, incarcerated at Napa State Hospital, has filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus under 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 ("Rule 4"). 

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. Rule 4 allows the court to "order the respondent to file an answer,

motion, or other response within a fixed time." This case calls for use of Rule 4's "other

response" option. 

This is one of more than a dozen cases Rosenbalm has filed in the last year in this court,

all of which in some way pertain to a criminal case against him in Mendocino County Superior

Court. Not only has he filed many cases, he has filed many documents in some of the cases, e.g.,

Case 3:07-cv-04197-SI Document 20 Filed 12/17/07 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

there are already 19 filings from him in just this case. His filings are very confused, repetitive,

and difficult to understand.

A threshold problem for this court is that Rosenbalm has not clearly articulated why he

is in a state mental hospital and what is happening in his state criminal case. The court earlier

asked him for information about his current residence in Napa State Hospital but that yielded

mixed results when Rosenbalm said hospital staff wouldn't provide him with the paper work to

send to the court. See Order To Show Cause Re. Contemplated Dismissal and Order Of

Dismissal in In Re. Rosenbalm, Nos. C 06-7801 SI (pr). In the current action, Rosenbalm states

that a court order was issued on April 13, 2007, by Judge Brennan that has something to do with

his detention at the state hospital and/or medication. 

The court might better understand Rosenbalm's situation and legal problem(s) if

respondent and his counsel provide some background information. The court therefore will

require respondent to file and serve a status report and exhibits to provide information about

Rosenbalm's current hospitalization, Rosenbalm's involuntary medication (if any), and the

criminal case against Rosenbalm. The status report must be filed and served no later than

January 18, 2008, and should answer these questions and provide these documents: 

1. Is Rosenbalm currently at Napa State Hospital pursuant to a court order (e.g., a

civil commitment order or order from the criminal court)? Attach to the status

report copies of the order(s).

2. Has Rosenbalm been involuntarily medicated at Napa State Hospital at any time

during 2007? Attach to the status report copies of any orders authorizing the

medication and any applications to subject him to involuntary medication. Also

identify the medications administered to Rosenbalm involuntarily in 2007. 

3. What is the status of Rosenbalm's criminal case in Mendocino County (e.g.,

pending, acquittal, conviction, or suspended related to his current hospitalization)?

What are the pending charges? Has trial date been set? (Rosenbalm has identified

the case as Mendocino County Superior Court, Case No. MCUK CRCR 06-

74005.) 

Case 3:07-cv-04197-SI Document 20 Filed 12/17/07 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

The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the contents of the case

file for this action upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State

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

Petitioner's in forma pauperis applications are DENIED as unnecessary because he paid

the filing fee. (Docket # 2, # 6.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 17, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04197-SI Document 20 Filed 12/17/07 Page 3 of 3