Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03967/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03967-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Gilbert
Petitioner
James A. Yates
Respondent

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH GILBERT,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 06-3967 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Joseph Gilbert, currently incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison, filed this pro se

action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before

the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

The petition contains the following information: Gilbert was convicted in the San Mateo

County Superior Court of attempted murder, carjacking, robbery, kidnapping, assault with a

deadly weapon, and residential burglary. Several sentence enhancement allegations were found

true. Gilbert was sentenced in December 2003 to a term of 40 years to life in prison. He

appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction and the California Supreme

Court denied his petition for review. He then filed this action. 

Case 3:06-cv-03967-SI Document 5 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 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

2

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).

The petition presents three claims for relief: (1) the consolidation of his case with a codefendant's case for trial violated due process, (2) the denial of Gilbert's motion to bifurcate trial

on the gang enhancement allegations violated due process, and (3) the imposition of a

consecutive life sentence for crimes Gilbert committed as a minor amounted to cruel and unusual

punishment. Liberally construed, the claims are cognizable in a federal habeas action and

warrant a response from respondents. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The claims identified above are cognizable claims for federal habeas relief and

warrant a response. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondents and respondents' attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California. The clerk shall also send a copy of this order to petitioner. 

3. Respondents must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before January 12, 2007,

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. Respondents must file with

Case 3:06-cv-03967-SI Document 5 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 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

3

the answer a copy of the record of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously

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

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

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before February 16, 2007.

5. Petitionerisresponsible for prosecuting this case. Petitioner must promptly inform

the court 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). Petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case

name and case number for this case on any document he submits to this court for consideration

in this case.

6. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED as unnecessary because he

paid the filing fee. (Docket # 3.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 7, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03967-SI Document 5 Filed 11/07/06 Page 3 of 3