Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04235/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04235-1/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)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HI QUOC TRUONG,

Petitioner,

 v.

D.L. RUNNELS, in his capacity as Warden

of the High Desert State Prison,

Respondent

 /

No. C 06-4235 MMC

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

RESPONDENT TO FILE RESPONSE TO

AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

Before the Court is Hi Quoc Truong’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,

filed March 20, 2008, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND

In 2002, in the California Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco,

petitioner was convicted of one count of first degree murder and one count of attempted

murder, with related sentencing enhancements for use of a firearm. On the first count, first

degree murder, petitioner was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years to life in state

prison, with a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm use allegation. On the

second count, attempted murder, petitioner was sentenced to a concurrent term of life

imprisonment with the possibility of parole, with a consecutive term of twenty years for the

firearm allegation associated with that count. The California Court of Appeal affirmed

petitioner’s conviction, and the Supreme Court of California denied review. 

Case 3:06-cv-04235-MMC Document 9 Filed 04/01/08 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

On July 6, 2006, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Superior

Court. Four days later, on July 10, 2006, petitioner filed his initial petition in the instant

action. On that same date, petitioner filed a motion to stay his federal habeas petition

pending exhaustion in state court of certain of the claims contained therein. By order filed

July 31, 2006, the Court granted petitioner’s motion and stayed the action, pending

petitioner’s exhaustion of his claims in state court. Thereafter, the San Francisco Superior

Court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and the California Court of Appeal

and California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s subsequent petitions.

On March 20, 2008, petitioner notified the Court that he had exhausted his claims in

state court; on that same date, petitioner filed his amended petition. 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

A district 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.” See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a). 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.” See 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)).

B. Petitioner’s Claims

In his amended petition, petitioner makes the following claims: (1) petitioner’s trial

counsel “provided ineffective assistance of counsel by basing petitioner’s entire defense on

a mistaken factual premise,” and, in reliance on such mistaken premise, “foregoing

presentation of a manslaughter defense . . . and failing to present evidence which would

have impeached the state’s case,” (see Am. Pet. at 3:15-22); (2) “[t]he state suppressed

Case 3:06-cv-04235-MMC Document 9 Filed 04/01/08 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

1

 The facts on which petitioner relies in support of such claims are set forth in the

amended petition. 

3

exculpatory evidence which it was required to have disclosed to defense counsel prior to

trial,” (see id. at 8:2-4); (3) petitioner’s rights under the Due Process Clause were violated

by the prosecution’s presentation of “a victim impact argument at petitioner’s non-capital

trial,” (see id. at 10:7-9); and (4) “the combination of these errors require[s] relief,” (see id.

at 11:26-27).1

The Court cannot say, from the face of the pleadings, that the claims alleged by

petitioner are vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. 

Consequently, respondent will be directed to file a response to the amended petition. 

Specifically, respondent will be directed to either file a motion to dismiss, if such a motion is

warranted, or, alternatively, to file an answer, attaching thereto a copy of all portions of the

state record relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition, and a

supporting memorandum of points and authorities.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the

Amended Petition, and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus upon respondent and respondent’s attorney, the

Attorney General for the State of California.

2. Respondent shall file, within 30 days of the date of service of this order, either a

motion to dismiss, noticed for hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2, or an answer and

supporting memorandum of points and authorities.

3. In the event respondent files an answer, petitioner may, within 30 days thereafter,

file a reply.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04235-MMC Document 9 Filed 04/01/08 Page 3 of 3