Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02611/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02611-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Knipp
Respondent
Ernesto B. Tarango
Petitioner
The Attorney General of the State of California
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNESTO B. TARANGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM KNIPP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02611-JST 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: ECF No. 3

Petitioner Ernesto B. Tarango has filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 3. 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.

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus on “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 Court finds that the claims raised in the petition are cognizable in a federal habeas 

petition.

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

attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the 

State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner and Petitioner’s 

Case 3:15-cv-02611-JST Document 4 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1 of 2
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

counsel at the mailing address provided.

Not more than 60 days from the date of this order, Respondent must file and serve upon 

Petitioner either: (1) 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 and 

providing all other materials required by Habeas Corpus Local Rule 2254-6(b); or (2) a motion to 

dismiss, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases, noticed for hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2.

If Respondent files an answer, Petitioner shall respond to the answer by filing a traverse

with the Court and serving it on Respondent within 30 days of the date the answer is filed. If 

Respondent files a motion to dismiss, Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent 

an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty days of the date the motion is filed. 

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner any reply within 15 days of the date 

any opposition is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02611-JST Document 4 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 2