Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00429/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00429-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD HEIDINGER,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

 Respondent.

______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0429 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER

TO ELECT TO PROCEED WITH

PENDING PETITION OR FILE

AMENDED PETITION; DENYING

REQUESTS FOR EVIDENTIARY

HEARING

(Docket Nos. 8, 13 & 14)

The above-titled action was opened on January 23, 2007, when petitioner, a California

prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis. On May 24, 2007, the Court granted petitioner leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered him to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

including all the claims he wishes to present in the petition. On June 25, 2007, petitioner

filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and exhibits in support thereof. On September 4,

2007, petitioner filed a document titled “Petitioner’s Update to the Court,” in which he states 

that on August 8, 2007, he learned for the first time of additional errors concerning his state

sentence. Petitioner also has filed three requests for an evidentiary hearing. 

BACKGROUND

In 2003, in the Superior Court of Monterey County (“Superior Court”), petitioner was

found guilty of assault and the infliction of corporal injury on a spouse. He was sentenced to

a term of twenty five years to life in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed

the conviction, but remanded the case for resentencing. The California Court of Appeal also

Case 3:07-cv-00429-MMC Document 16 Filed 01/28/08 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

2

denied a habeas petition that petitioner had filed concurrently with his appeal. The California

Supreme Court denied petitions for review with respect to both the appeal and the habeas

petition. Thereafter, petitioner filed additional state habeas petitions that were denied in the

Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, and California Supreme Court. 

DISCUSSION

A. Petitioner’s Claims

This Court may entertain a petition for a 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);

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court 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) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 

431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).

In the petition filed June 25, 2007, petitioner asserts the following grounds for relief:

(1) actual innocence of the charged crimes; (2) instructional error; (3) denial of conflict-free

counsel; (4) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (5) violation of the right to a jury trial; (6)

prosecutorial misconduct; (7) sentencing determinations by the judge rather than the jury; (8)

sentence enhancements based on constitutionally infirm prior convictions; (9) cumulative

error; (10) disproportionate sentencing amounting to cruel or unusual punishment; and (11)

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. 

Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims are cognizable. The Court will not issue an

order to show cause in this matter, however, because it is unclear whether petitioner is

attempting to assert additional claims, and whether those claims are exhausted. Specifically,

on September 4, 2007, petitioner filed an “update” concerning his petition, in which he states

that on August 8, 2007, when he was reviewing his prison file, he discovered for the first

Case 3:07-cv-00429-MMC Document 16 Filed 01/28/08 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

3

time that on March 8, 2005, a resentencing hearing was held without his knowledge, and that

errors were made by the court at the hearing. Petitioner states he is attempting to investigate

the matter further, and that he has filed a motion in state court seeking access to transcripts

and other case materials relevant to the March 8, 2005 hearing. 

If petitioner’s intent is to add to the instant petition additional claims concerning the

March 8, 2005 sentencing hearing, he can do so only by filing an amended petition that

contains all of the claims on which he intends to proceed in federal court. A petitioner may

not proceed on unexhausted claims, however. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982)

(holding federal district court must dismiss habeas petition containing any claim as to which

state remedies have not been exhausted). Consequently, if petitioner herein wishes to include

in the amended petition any claims that have not been exhausted in the state courts, he must

also file a motion for a stay of the instant proceedings while he exhausts such claims. 

Accordingly, before the instant matter may proceed further, petitioner must (1) either

inform the Court that he intends to proceed only with the claims included in the petition he

filed on June 25, 2007, or (2) file an amended petition that includes the claims from the

June 25, 2007 petition as well as the claims concerning the March 8, 2005 sentencing

hearing. If petitioner chooses the latter option, and if petitioner has included in the amended

petition any claim(s) that have not been exhausted, petitioner must also move for a stay of

this matter while he returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. In such motion,

petitioner must (a) delineate the unexhausted claims he will be pursuing in state court,

(b) show good cause for his failure to exhaust the claims earlier, and (c) show that the claims

are potentially meritorious. See Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005).

 B. Petitioner’s Motions

Petitioner has filed three requests for an evidentiary hearing concerning claims he

raises in the June 25, 2007 petition. Until the Court has issued an order directing respondent

to show cause why the writ should not be granted, however, petitioner’s requests are

premature. Accordingly, the requests will be denied without prejudice. Once an order to

show cause has issued in this matter, petitioner may file a renewed request for an evidentiary

Case 3:07-cv-00429-MMC Document 16 Filed 01/28/08 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

1

Petitioner may disregard items II and III of the Instructions.

4

hearing; petitioner must also serve any such request on respondent’s counsel. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, petitioner shall either:

(1) inform the Court that he intends to proceed only with the claims included in the petition

he filed on June 25, 2007, or (2) file an amended petition that includes the claims from the

June 25, 2007 petition as well as the claims concerning the March 8, 2005 sentencing

hearing; if such amended petition includes any unexhausted claims, petitioner must also

move for a stay of this matter, as set forth in Section A above.

2. If petitioner chooses to file an amended petition, he must include the caption and

civil case number used in this order, No. C 07-0429 MMC (PR), as well as the words FIRST

AMENDED PETITION on the first page; petitioner shall not incorporate material from the

original petition by reference. A copy of this district’s form petition, along with instructions

for completing it,1

 has been provided with this order.

3. If petitioner fails to respond to this order by choosing one of the above-enumerated

options, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice.

4. Petitioner’s requests for an evidentiary hearing are DENIED as premature.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 8, 13 and 14. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 28, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00429-MMC Document 16 Filed 01/28/08 Page 4 of 4