Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05719/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05719-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Michael Leon
Petitioner
James E. Tilton
Respondent
James A. Yates
Respondent

Document Text:

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 MICHAEL LEON,

Petitioner,

 v.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden, Pleasant Valley

State Prison; JAMES E. TILTON, Director of

California Department of Corrections,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-5719 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. section 2254. Petitioner was

convicted of murder after a jury trial in Alameda County. Accordingly, venue is proper. See

Local Rule 2254-3. 

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 

Case 3:07-cv-05719-CRB Document 3 Filed 11/19/07 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

G:\CRBALL\2007\5719\osc.wpd 2

is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably

incredible, or 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: November 19, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05719-CRB Document 3 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 2