Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00966/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00966-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E. Alameida
Respondent
Robert Williams
Petitioner

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

ROBERT WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

 v

E ALAMEIDA, JR,

Respondent.

 /

No C 04-0966 VRW

 ORDER

Petitioner Robert Williams has filed his amended petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC section 2254. Doc # 8.

Petitioner was convicted of sex offenses involving a minor in the

superior court for Monterey County. He is now serving a sentence of

67 years, eight months to life for these crimes. Petitioner alleges

that he has now exhausted state remedies. 

The 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

\\

\\

Case 3:04-cv-00966-VRW Document 10 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 3
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

 of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28

USC § 2254(a); Rose v Hodges, 423 US 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 USC § 2243. Summary

dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition

are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous

or false. Hendricks v Vasquez, 908 F2d 490, 491 (9th Cir 1990)

(quoting Blackledge v Allison, 431 US 63, 75-76 (1977)).

The court has reviewed the petition. For good cause

shown, the court now orders as follows: 

1. The clerk 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 the 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 answer, he

shall do so by filing a traverse with the court and serving it upon

\\

\\

Case 3:04-cv-00966-VRW Document 10 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

the respondents within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the

answer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00966-VRW Document 10 Filed 04/28/05 Page 3 of 3