Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20810/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20810-0/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

Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.01\Arnold810oscremand 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRADY ARNOLD, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 01-20810 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Alameda County Superior Court conviction for

attempted robbery while armed with a firearm (Cal. Penal Code §§ 211, 664,

12022(a)(1)), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Cal. Penal Code §

12021(a)(1)) and shooting at an occupied building (Cal. Penal Code § 246). Petitioner

was sentenced to forty-one years-to-life in state prison. 

On November 4, 2003, the Court denied the instant petition and entered judgment

for Respondent. Petitioner appealed this Court’s denial of the petition. The Court denied

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Case 5:01-cv-20810-JF Document 57 Filed 07/13/06 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

Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.01\Arnold810oscremand 2

granted a certificate of appealability and reviewed this Court’s denial of the petition. 

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. See Arnold v. Runnels, 421 F.3d 859, 869-870

(9th Cir. 2005). On remand, the Ninth Circuit ordered the Court to issue a conditional

writ of habeas corpus and require that the State of California release Petitioner from

custody in this case, unless it grants Petitioner a new trial within a reasonable period of

time as determined by this Court. Id. On March 2, 2006, this Court issued an order

conditionally granting the petition. The Court ordered that Petitioner must be released

and his conviction vacated unless the State of California retries Petitioner within onehundred and twenty (120) days. A copy of the Court’s order was sent to the parties of

record and sent by certified mail to the Alameda Superior Court. 

As of the date of this order, neither party has advised the Court of the status of the

trial proceedings against Petitioner, if any. Accordingly, the Court orders Respondent to

show cause as to why this Court should not issue an unconditional order releasing

Petitioner. Respondent shall file a response and notify the Court of the current status of

Petitioner’s underlying state court criminal proceedings within seven days of the date of

this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ___7/13/06_________ JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

/s/

Case 5:01-cv-20810-JF Document 57 Filed 07/13/06 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

Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.01\Arnold810oscremand 3

This is to certify that on ______________________________, a copy of this ruling was

mailed to the following:

Grady Arnold

C-11965

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532-7500

Amitai Schwartz, Esq.

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1286 

Emeryville, CA 94608

George F. Hindall, III

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Ave

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:01-cv-20810-JF Document 57 Filed 07/13/06 Page 3 of 3