Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05581/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05581-0/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)

---

Case No.15-cv-05581 NC 

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH GIRK,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOE A. LIZARRAGA,

Defendant.

Case No.15-cv-05581 NC 

ORDER OF SERVICE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Petitioner Joseph Girk, a state prisoner incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, has 

filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

I. BACKGROUND

Girk was convicted by a jury of two first degree residential burglaries in the Lake

County Superior Court of the State of California. On October 19, 2012, he was sentenced 

to 55 years to life in state prison. Girk received two 25-year terms under the California 

Three Strikes Law, and a consecutive 5-year term for a prior conviction of residential 

burglary. Girk unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal 

and the Supreme Court of California, which on August 13, 2014, denied review of a 

petition allegedly raising the same claims raised here. The Supreme Court of California 

also denied a later Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on December 10, 2014.

Case 3:15-cv-05581-WHO Document 6 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 4
Case No.15-cv-05581 NC 2

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

Northern District of California

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

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). It must “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. Girk’s Legal Claims

Girk seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising the following claims: (1) the trial 

court did not consider substantial evidence suggesting he was not competent to stand trial, 

and did not initiate proceedings to determine competency; (2) he received ineffective 

assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to present evidence regarding Girk’s 

incompetency to stand trial; and (3) a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Liberally 

construed, the claims appear colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an answer from 

respondent.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

1. The clerk must serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the 

petition and all attachments thereto upon respondent. The clerk must also 

serve a copy of this order on petitioner.

2. Respondent must file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 60 

days of the date of this order, an answer showing why a writ of habeas 

corpus should not be issued. Respondent must file with the answer and 

Case 3:15-cv-05581-WHO Document 6 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 4
Case No.15-cv-05581 NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the administrative record that 

are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

3. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a 

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his 

receipt of the answer.

4. Respondent must file a consent or declination to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction within 14 days. A copy of the form is attached to this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05581-WHO Document 6 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 4
Case No.15-cv-05581 NC 4

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH GIRK,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOE A. LIZARRAGA,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05581-NC 

CONSENT OR DECLINATION TO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

JURISDICTION

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate below by checking one of the two boxes whether 

you (if you are the party) or the party you represent (if you are an attorney in the case) 

choose(s) to consent or decline magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Sign this form 

below your selection.

( ) Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I voluntarily consent to 

have a United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, 

including trial and entry of final judgment. I understand that appeal from the judgment 

shall be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

OR

( ) Decline Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I decline to have a United 

States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case and I hereby request 

that this case be reassigned to a United States district judge.

DATE: NAME:

COUNSEL FOR:

(OR “PRO SE:)

__________________________________

Signature

Case 3:15-cv-05581-WHO Document 6 Filed 09/28/16 Page 4 of 4