Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05184/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05184-1/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)

---

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 has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

(Docket No. 7.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GINGER VLAHOS-SCHMIDT,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 14-5184 NC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Ginger Vlahos-Schmidt, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 conviction from Alameda

County Superior Court.1

 Her petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. She has paid the

$5.00 filing fee.

BACKGROUND 

In 2011, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of assault with a deadly weapon. She was

sentenced to a term of five years. In 2013, the California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the

California Supreme Court denied review. In 2014, Petitioner filed unsuccessful state habeas

Case 3:14-cv-05184-EMC Document 8 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 3
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

petitions in the California Court of Appeal as well as the California Supreme Court. The

instant action was filed on November 10, 2014.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for 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). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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 petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner claims: (1) the trial court improperly

restricted her right to testify about prior incidents with the victim in which the victim

inflicted violence upon Petitioner; (2) counsel rendered ineffective assistance; (3) the

prosecutor committed misconduct; (4) cumulative errors at trial prejudiced Petitioner; and (5)

appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance. When liberally construed, these claims are

sufficient to warrant an answer from Respondent.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent

form, a copy of this Order, and the petition, and all attachments thereto, on Respondent and

Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. Respondent shall file

his Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form no later than thirty (30) days from the filing

date of this Order.

Case 3:14-cv-05184-EMC Document 8 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 3
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

2. Respondent is directed to file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety

(90) days of the issuance of this order, 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 the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent must 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 must do so by filing a traverse with

the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within ninety (90) days, a motion to dismiss on procedural

grounds in lieu of an answer, 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 must file

with the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within

twenty-eight (28) days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent must file with the

Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any opposition is

filed.

4. 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. Petitioner

must keep the Court 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). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate 

Case 3:14-cv-05184-EMC Document 8 Filed 03/09/15 Page 3 of 3