Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00429/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00429-2/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 TO SHOW CAUSE;

DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME

(Docket No. 18)

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, such

petition to include all the claims he wished to present. On June 25, 2007, petitioner filed a

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

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

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

sentence, in particular, errors concerning a March 8, 2005 hearing.

On January 28, 2008, the Court found the claims alleged in the petition, when liberally

construed, stated cognizable claims for relief; the Court afforded petitioner leave to amend,

however, for the purpose of alleging the additional claims referenced in “Petitioner’s Update

to the Court.” In that regard, the Court directed petitioner either (1) to inform the Court that

Case 3:07-cv-00429-MMC Document 20 Filed 05/28/08 Page 1 of 5
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

he intends to proceed only with the claims included in the petition he filed on June 25, 2007,

or (2) to file an amended petition, including therein the claims from the June 25, 2007

petition as well as the claims concerning the March 8, 2005 sentencing hearing. The Court

further explained to petitioner that if he chose the latter option and included in the amended

petition any claims that have not been exhausted, he must also move for a stay of this matter

while he returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. 

On February 22, 2008, petitioner filed a response to the Court’s order, in which he

states he intends to proceed only with the claims included in the petition he filed on June 25,

2007. Accordingly, the Court will order respondent to file an answer to the petition or,

alternatively, a motion to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds.

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

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

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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

Case 3:07-cv-00429-MMC Document 20 Filed 05/28/08 Page 2 of 5
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

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 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. 

C. Request for Extension of Time

On April 14, 2008, petitioner filed a request for an extension of time of ninety days in

which to file any written response required by the Court. In support of said request,

petitioner states that on April 9, 2008, he was transferred to the University of California at

Davis Medical Facility, where he is to undergo major surgery to replace his shoulder, and

that petitioner’s doctor has informed him that after the surgery, petitioner will be unable to

write for a period of ninety days. 

The request will be denied without prejudice as premature, as no written response will

be due from petitioner until thirty days after respondent has filed either an answer or a

motion to dismiss. As respondent will be granted ninety days in which to do so, it is likely

that petitioner will be able to file a timely response thereto. Should petitioner be unable to do

so, he may file a renewed request for an extension of time after he is served with the answer

or motion to dismiss. 

CONCLUSION

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

1. Petitioner’s request for an extension of time is hereby DENIED without prejudice. 

Case 3:07-cv-00429-MMC Document 20 Filed 05/28/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4

(Docket No. 18.)

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

petition (Docket No. 6), and the exhibits filed in support thereof (Docket No. 7), on

respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California. The

Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not

be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer

and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been

transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition. 

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with

the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

answer is filed.

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory

Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files

such a motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or

statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of

the date any opposition is filed.

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. 

6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Case 3:07-cv-00429-MMC Document 20 Filed 05/28/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

This order terminates Docket No. 18. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 28, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00429-MMC Document 20 Filed 05/28/08 Page 5 of 5