Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05509/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05509-0/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM WEISNER,

Petitioner,

v.

M S. EVANS, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-5509 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

William Weisner, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se action for a

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

Weisner's petition discloses that he was convicted on a guilty plea in Alameda County

Superior Court of robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and carjacking. He was sentenced in

November 2004 to 20 years in prison. He appealed. His conviction was affirmed by the

California Court of Appeal and his petition for review was denied by the California Supreme

Court. He also apparently field unsuccessful petitions for writ of habeas corpus in state court.

He then filed this action.

Case 3:07-cv-05509-SI Document 4 Filed 03/10/08 Page 1 of 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

2

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). 

The petition asserts the following claims. First, Weisner claims that his right to due

process was violated because his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary due to his mental

illness. Second, he claims that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate

and make use of available information about Weisner's mental illness before allowing him to

enter his guilty plea. Third, Weisner claims that counsel provided ineffective assistance by

failing to request a pre-plea competency hearing or at least inform the court of the change in

Weisner's mental health. Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable in a federal habeas

action and warrant a response. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states cognizable claims for habeas relief and warrants a response. 

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

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State

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

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before May 23, 2008, an

answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

Case 3:07-cv-05509-SI Document 4 Filed 03/10/08 Page 2 of 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

3

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent must file with the

answer a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and

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

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

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before July 3, 2008.

5. Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or applied to proceed in forma pauperis. 

He recently wrote a letter to the court inquiring whether he could resubmit his petition with a

filing fee. He does not need to resubmit his petition, but he must pay the $5.00 filing fee or

file a completed in forma pauperis application. If the fee or application is not submitted by

April 30, 2008, this action will be dismissed. 

6. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He must keep the court

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). Petitioner must write the name and case

number for this case on the first page of every document he files. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 10, 2008 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05509-SI Document 4 Filed 03/10/08 Page 3 of 3