Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01272/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01272-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CDCR
Respondent
Heidi Lynn Pendergast
Petitioner

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

HEIDI LYNN PENDERGAST,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01272-JD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Napa County, which is in this district, so venue is 

proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). She has paid the filing fee.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner states that she was sentenced to six years after pleading nolo contendere to 

residential burglary and vehicle theft. Petition at 1-2. She states that she filed no appeals. 

Petition at 3 

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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); Rose v. 

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 

habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 

Case 3:19-cv-01272-JD Document 9 Filed 05/03/19 Page 1 of 4
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

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 

each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ 

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 

of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Petitioner alleges that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that there was 

prosecutorial misconduct. Petitioner also states that no claims have been appealed in state court. 

Before she may challenge either the fact or length of her confinement in a habeas petition in this 

Court, petitioner must present to the California Supreme Court any claims she wishes to raise in 

this Court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal 

habeas petition must be exhausted). The general rule is that a federal district court must dismiss a 

federal habeas petition containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been exhausted. 

Id. 

It appears that petitioner has presented an entirely unexhausted petition. Petitioner shall 

show cause why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice as unexhausted. Petitioner 

may also request a stay. In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) the United States Supreme 

Court found that a stay and abeyance of a mixed federal petition should be available only in the 

limited circumstance that good cause is shown for a failure to have first exhausted the claims in 

state court, that the claim or claims at issue potentially have merit and that there has been no 

indication that petitioner has been intentionally dilatory in pursuing the litigation. Rhines, supra, 

at 277-78. A district court also has the discretion to stay a petition containing only unexhausted 

claims. Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 909 (9th Cir. 2016). 

CONCLUSION

1. Within twenty-eight (28) days of service of this order, petitioner must show cause 

why this case should not be dismissed as unexhausted or she may file a motion for a stay and 

address the legal standards set forth above.

2. Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply 

Case 3:19-cv-01272-JD Document 9 Filed 05/03/19 Page 2 of 4
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

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). See Martinez v. 

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01272-JD Document 9 Filed 05/03/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

HEIDI LYNN PENDERGAST,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01272-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 3, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Heidi Lynn Pendergast ID: WG0089

Puerta La Cruz Conservation Camp #14

32363 Highway 79

Warner Springs, CA 92086 

Dated: May 3, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:19-cv-01272-JD Document 9 Filed 05/03/19 Page 4 of 4