Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00186/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00186-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID COMBS,

Petitioner,

 v.

 TOM L. CAREY,

Respondent. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0186 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On January 11, 2006, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 30,

2006, the petition was dismissed with leave to amend. On June 29, 2006, petitioner timely

filed an amended petition.

BACKGROUND

In 2003, in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, petitioner was sentenced to a

term of 23 years and four months in state prison, following his conviction on charges of false

imprisonment, inflicting corporal punishment, assault with a deadly weapon, and burglary. 

The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus in which petitioner assertedly raised the claims raised herein.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person

Case 3:06-cv-00186-MMC Document 12 Filed 12/11/06 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

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

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

Petitioner claims: (1) he was deprived of this Sixth Amendment right to the effective

assistance of counsel when the trial court denied a defense motion to continue the trial, which

led counsel to “misadvise” petitioner to plead guilty plea rather than proceed to a trial for

which defense counsel was not prepared; (2) the trial court “abused its discretion” and

violated petitioner’s “constitutional right to a trial” in denying petitioner’s motion to

continue; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion and violated petitioner’s constitutional

right to effective assistance of counsel and to a trial when it denied petitioner’s motion to

withdraw his guilty plea. 

Petitioner’s claims, when liberally construed, are cognizable. 

CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

petition, along with all attachments thereto, upon respondent and respondent’s attorney, the

Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order

on petitioner.

 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 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

Case 3:06-cv-00186-MMC Document 12 Filed 12/11/06 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

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 within 30 days of the date the answer is filed.

3. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within 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 30 days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent

shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 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. 

5. 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).

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

be granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline which they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00186-MMC Document 12 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 3