Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00759/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00759-0/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

No. C 10-0759 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 4/16/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

THANH VAN DO,

Petitioner,

 v.

GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-0759 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITION WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

This is a federal habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a pro se state

prisoner. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 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. 

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,

Case 3:10-cv-00759-RS Document 6 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 4
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

No. C 10-0759 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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 puts forth in his petition four claims,

three of which are sufficiently detailed for the Court to determine whether it has jurisdiction

over the claims, while the fourth is given without any legal or factual basis. This fourth

claim, petitioner contends, is currently before the state courts. Petitioner moves to stay his

federal habeas action until that fourth claim has been exhausted in the state courts, and thus

will be presentable on federal habeas review. (See Docket No. 2.) 

Petitioner’s motion is DENIED. As petitioner fails to state the legal or factual basis of

this fourth claim, the Court cannot determine whether it has jurisdiction over such a claim. 

Consequently, a stay would not be appropriate at this time. 

Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Petitioner must file an

amended petition within 30 days from the date this order is filed. In this amended petition,

petitioner must provide sufficient legal and factual basis for all of his claims, including the

unexhausted one. Any claims that are insufficiently alleged will be dismissed. The first

amended petition must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (10-0759

RS (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Because an

amended petition completely replaces the previous petitions, petitioner must include in his

first amended petition all the claims he wishes to present. Petitioner may not incorporate

material from the prior petition by reference. Failure to file an amended petition in

accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to

petitioner.

At the time he files his amended petition, petitioner may file a renewed motion for a

stay. After a review of such a motion, a stay may be issued if circumstances warrant it. 

Case 3:10-cv-00759-RS Document 6 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 4
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

No. C 10-0759 RS (PR)

3 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask for

an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action. 

CONCLUSION

Petitioner’s motion for a stay (Docket No. 2) is DENIED as premature. The petition

is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the instructions in this order. Failure

to file an amended petition within 30 days from the date this order is filed will result in

dismissal of the action without prejudice. 

This order terminates Docket No. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 15, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00759-RS Document 6 Filed 04/16/10 Page 3 of 4
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

No. C 10-0759 RS (PR)

4 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

Thanh Van Do 

H-88998 

California State Prison - Solano 

PO Box 4000 

Vacaville, CA 95696-4000 

DATED: 04/16/2010 

 

 s/ Chambers Staff 

Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

* Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who

have not registered with the Court's electronic filing system.

Case 3:10-cv-00759-RS Document 6 Filed 04/16/10 Page 4 of 4