Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03492/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03492-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jay Choi
Petitioner
Laura Garnette
Respondent

Document Text:

ORDER (No. 15-cv-03492-LB)

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

San Francisco Division

JAY CHOI,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAURA GARNETTE,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03492-LB 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: ECF No. 10

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Jay Choi filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Dr. Choi’s 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 in the United States District Courts. This order requires 

the respondent to respond to the petition to show cause why the writ should not be granted.

STATEMENT

On January 11, 2008, Dr. Choi physically confronted his wife, Haeeun Choi. (Amended 

Petition, ECF No. 10 at 2.1) The Santa Clara District Attorney charged Dr. Choi in 2009 with 

exhibiting a deadly weapon and domestic violence with corporal injury. (Id. at 4.) A jury acquitted 

 

1 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of documents.

Case 3:15-cv-03492-RS Document 13 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 3
ORDER (No. 15-cv-03492-LB) 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

him of exhibiting a deadly weapon and convicted him of domestic violence. (Id.) The court 

sentenced Dr. Choi to 94 days of jail time to be served through electronic monitoring and three 

years of probation. (Id.) The probationary period was increased later to five years. (Id.) 

Dr. Choi appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, 

which affirmed the conviction and sentence on January 22, 2014. (Id.; see People v. Choi, No. 

H036360, 2014 WL 243405 (Cal. Ct. App Jan. 22, 2014).) Dr. Choi filed a petition for review in 

the California Supreme Court, which denied review on May 14, 2014. (ECF No. 10 at 4.) The case 

became final on appeal on August 12, 2014. (Id.)

Dr. Choi filed his federal habeas petition on July 29, 2015. (Id. at 4-5.) He asked the court to 

hold the petition in abeyance while he exhausted state remedies, and the court granted the request. 

(Id. at 5.) On July 27, 2015, he filed a habeas petition in Santa Clara County Superior Court, and 

the court denied it on September 8, 2015. (Id.) On September 30, 2015, he filed a habeas petition 

in the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, which denied it on November 10, 

2015. (Id.) On December 7, 2015, he filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, 

which denied it on January 20, 2016. (Id.) 

Dr. Choi filed an amended federal habeas petition on February 18, 2016. Dr. Choi completed 

the terms of his probation on November 12, 2015, and Santa Clara County Superior Court set 

aside his conviction and dismissed the information on January 12, 2016. (Petition to Expunge 

Record, ECF No. 10-1 at 108.) Mr. Choi’s counsel served a copy of the petition on respondent on 

February 22, 2016. (Amended Certificate of Service, ECF No. 12.)

ANALYSIS

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). It 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, 

Case 3:15-cv-03492-RS Document 13 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 3
ORDER (No. 15-cv-03492-LB) 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

908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

Dr. Choi asserts that his conviction was “unlawfully and unconstitutionally imposed in 

violation of his constitutional rights as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution. Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of 

counsel in failing to present readily available evidence to support the only defenses presented.” 

(Amended Petition, ECF. No 10 at 6.) He alleges federal constitutional claims that are cognizable 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court thus orders an answer from the respondent. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

1. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of the date 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. 

The respondents must file with the answer and serve on the petitioner a copy of all 

portions of the administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues 

presented by the petition.

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

the court and serving it on the respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2016 ______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03492-RS Document 13 Filed 02/24/16 Page 3 of 3