Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07729/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07729-2/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

EDWARD JAMES DRYG,

Petitioner, No. C 06-7729 PJH

v. ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

SHEILA E. MITCHELL, Chief, Santa

Clara County Probation Department,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

On December 18, 2006, petitioner Edward James Dryg, who is presently on formal

supervised probation following a judgment of conviction in the Superior Court of California,

County of Santa Clara, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. On January 18, 2007, the court issued a lengthy order to show cause, directing Dryg

to demonstrate why his petition should not be dismissed as unexhausted. Dryg filed a

response on February 2, 2007, which attached the habeas petition that he filed with

California Supreme Court. The state also filed a response on May 14, 2007, and Dryg

subsequently filed a reply May 25, 2007.

Initially, it appeared to the court that Dryg’s petition sought relief for a habeas claim

that had not been raised before the state court. The subsequent briefing, however, clarifies

that Dryg seeks federal habeas relief only as to the claim raised by his state habeas

petition. Accordingly, the court will strictly limit its review to this exhausted claim only.

That claim is as follows:

Case 4:06-cv-07729-PJH Document 8 Filed 07/10/07 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

Whether or not Dryg was denied his right to the effective assistance of

counsel based on counsel’s failure to pursue a motion to dismiss with

prejudice for violation of the International Detainer Agreement?

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown

1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition and

all attachments thereto upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order

on petitioner.

2. Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of

the date 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 shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions

of the administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by

the petition.

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

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the

answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2007

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge 

Case 4:06-cv-07729-PJH Document 8 Filed 07/10/07 Page 2 of 2