Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-03502/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-03502-6/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MICHAEL GRAVES,

Petitioner,

 v.

D.K. SISTO, Warden

Respondent. /

No. C 01-03502 SI

ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S LETTER

On September 17, 2001, petitioner David Michael Graves filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus, challenging his conviction for murder and attempted murder. Petitioner has now filed a letter

to the Court “to clarify facts,” and also apparently moving for summary judgment. Petitioner has also

filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing, and a motion for appointment of counsel. 

///

Case 3:01-cv-03502-SI Document 111 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 2
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 also requests that the Court order the estate of his recently-deceased former attorney,

Frank Prantil, to return to petitioner all money he paid to Mr. Prantil. Petitioner argues that Mr. Prantil

was grossly negligent in his handling of the habeas petition, and did not fulfill his contract with

petitioner. The Court cannot issue such an order in this habeas case. If petitioner feels he has a valid

legal claim against Mr. Prantil’s estate, he may file a separate lawsuit in the appropriate court to resolve

the dispute. Such a dispute, however, cannot be addressed by this Court, in the habeas case. 

2

As indicated in prior orders, the Court has stayed this case pending resolution of an issue raised

in petitioner’s second amended habeas petition – whether California’s timeliness rule is an adequate

procedural bar – that was also pending before the Ninth Circuit in another case, King v. Lamarque, No.

05-15757. King has now been remanded to this Court, and the King parties have set an extended

briefing schedule on the issue. Nothing in petitioner’s recent letter compels the Court to lift the stay.

The Court will not rule on any of the issues raised by petitioner in his recent filings and pending motions

until King has been fully briefed and resolved; accordingly any such pending motions are DENIED

without prejudice to renewal after the stay is lifted. Mr. Graves should not file anything more with the

Court until the stay is lifted; he will be notified when the stay is lifted.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:01-cv-03502-SI Document 111 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 2