Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00895/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00895-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S. Hatton
Respondent
Duane Scott Joachim
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

DUANE SCOTT JOACHIM,

Petitioner,

v.

S. HATTON, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-00895-HSG (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

Re: Dkt. No. 2

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, 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 in the United States District Courts. Petitioner also seeks to proceed in forma 

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

BACKGROUND

The petition provides the following information: In 2013, in Contra Costa County Superior 

Court, petitioner was convicted by a jury of first degree residential burglary and first degree 

residential robbery with an enhancement for a prior prison term. He was sentenced to 7 years and 

8 months in state prison. In 2015, the California Court of Appeal remanded to the trial court to 

correct sentencing and clerical errors but confirmed the judgment in all other respects. Petitioner 

also filed unsuccessful petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the state courts. The instant action 

was filed on February 23, 2016.

Case 4:16-cv-00895-HSG Document 4 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 3
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

DISCUSSION

A. 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). 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). 

B. Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that he was denied his constitutional 

right to a speedy trial. Liberally construed, the claim appears arguably cognizable under § 2254 

and merits an answer from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s in forma pauperis application is GRANTED.

2. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the 

respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The 

Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety-one (91)

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 granted 

based on the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on 

petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and 

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

Case 4:16-cv-00895-HSG Document 4 Filed 04/25/16 Page 2 of 3
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

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

Court and serving it on respondent within thirty-five (35) days of the date the answer is filed.

4. Respondent may file, within ninety-one (91) days, a motion to dismiss on procedural 

grounds in lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the 

Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight 

(28) days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 

petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any opposition is filed.

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on 

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep 

the Court informed 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). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 

1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be 

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

This order terminates Docket No. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

April 25, 2016

Case 4:16-cv-00895-HSG Document 4 Filed 04/25/16 Page 3 of 3