Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03990/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03990-0/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)

---

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

ROBERT DALTON RUSH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BEN CURRY,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-03990 CRB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, who is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections, has filed a

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

committing second-degree murder and is currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility

in Soledad, California in Monterey County. Accordingly, venue is proper. See Local Rule 

2254-3(b)(2). 

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 petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible,

or

Case 3:07-cv-03990-CRB Document 5 Filed 09/19/07 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

2

patently frivolous or false. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). The Court has reviewed the petition and finds

good cause to proceed. Accordingly:

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

attachments thereto upon the respondents and the respondents’ counsel, the Attorney General of the

State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this Order on the petitioner’s counsel.

2. Respondents shall file with this Court and serve upon the petitioner, within sixty (60) 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 issued. Respondent

shall file with the answer a copy of all portions of the state trial and appellate record that have been

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

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

and serving it upon the respondents within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03990-CRB Document 5 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 2