Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02074/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02074-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

LYLE E. NORBERT,

Petitioner,

 v.

T. FELKER, Warden,

Respondent /

No. C 07-2074 MMC

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

RESPONDENT TO FILE RESPONSE TO

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

Before the Court is Lyle E. Norbert’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed April

12, 2007, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner “was convicted following a jury trial [in Alameda County Superior Court] of

second degree murder (Pen. Code § 187), evading a peace officer causing death or

serious bodily injury (Veh. Code § 2800.3), possession of concentrated cannabis (Health &

Saf. Code § 11357, subd. (a)), and sale or transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code

§ 11360, subd. (a)).” See People v. Norbert, 2005 WL 2328792, *1 (Cal. App. 2005), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 1787 (2006). “He was sentenced to an aggregate indefinite term of 15

years to life in state prison.” Id. On September 23, 2005, the California Court of Appeal

affirmed the judgment. See id. On January 4, 2006, the California Supreme Court denied

review, (see Mem. of P. & A. in Support of Petition at 1:23-24), and, on April 17, 2006, the

Case 3:07-cv-02074-MMC Document 3 Filed 04/23/07 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

United States Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari, (see id. at 1:24-26).

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 petition, petitioner makes the following claims: (1) petitioner was “denied due

process when the trial court declined to instruct upon the defense theory of vehicular

manslaughter”; (2) petitioner was “denied due process when the trial court gave defective

instructions upon the distinction between murder and involuntary manslaughter”;

(3) “[t]he trial court’s instruction on prior uncharged crimes violated due process by

impermissibly lowering the state’s burden of proof on the murder charge”; (4) petitioner

“was denied due process by the admission of evidence of five other crimes”; and (5) “[t]he

cumulative effect of the errors at trial was to deny [petitioner] due process.” (See Petition

at B.) Petitioner alleges that each of the above claims has been “fully exhausted.” (See

id.)

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 petition. Specifically,

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

Case 3:07-cv-02074-MMC Document 3 Filed 04/23/07 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

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

Petition, and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of 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 23, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02074-MMC Document 3 Filed 04/23/07 Page 3 of 3