Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00679/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00679-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Long
Respondent
David Charles Moon
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

DAVID CHARLES MOON,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID LONG,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-00679-JCS (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state 

convictions.1 The petition for such relief is here for review under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Respondent shall file a response to the petition on or before June 30, 2016.

The petition appears to be untimely. Petitioner was sentenced in 2008 but the 

instant petition was not filed until 2016. Respondent is directed to consider first whether a 

motion to dismiss on grounds of untimeliness is the most appropriate first response to the

petition. If he so concludes, he may file a motion to dismiss, though he is not required to 

do so. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, in 2008, in the Marin County Superior Court, petitioner 

pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping, robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, assault 

 

1

Petitioner consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Docket No. 4.) The magistrate 

judge, then, has jurisdiction to issue this order, even though respondents have not been 

served or consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 

532 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Case 3:16-cv-00679-JD Document 5 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 4
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

with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, impersonating a public officer, making threats, 

and various enhancements. He was sentenced to 14 years and 8 months in state prison. 

DISCUSSION

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). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that (1) his sentence is invalid 

under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (2) defense counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance. When liberally construed, these claims are cognizable in a federal 

habeas corpus action. 

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments

thereto, and a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form 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. 

2. 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 previously 

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

the petition. 

Case 3:16-cv-00679-JD Document 5 Filed 03/23/16 Page 2 of 4
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

3. 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).

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.

8. The Court notes that the filing fee has been paid. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2016

_________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00679-JD Document 5 Filed 03/23/16 Page 3 of 4
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

DAVID CHARLES MOON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID LONG,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-00679-JCS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on March 23, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

David Charles Moon ID: G13873

California City Correctional Facility (CAC)

P.O. Box 2760

California City, CA 93504 

Dated: March 23, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JOSEPH C. SPERO

Case 3:16-cv-00679-JD Document 5 Filed 03/23/16 Page 4 of 4