United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DKT. NOS. 2 AND 3
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, United States District Judge.
Armando Gill seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 from his state convictions and sentence. The
petition for such relief states cognizable claims.
Accordingly, on or before November 25, 2019,
respondent shall file an answer or a dispositive motion in
response to the habeas petition.
to the petition, in 2013 Gill pleaded guilty in the Marin
County Superior Court to charges of participating in a street
gang, attempted first degree murder, making terrorist
threats, and unlawful sexual intercourse. It is unclear what
sentence was imposed. Gill says it was life with the
possibility of parole, but CDCR documents attached to the
petition state it was 17 years to life. (Pet., Dkt No. 1 at
1, 20.) Gill’s attempts to overturn his convictions in
state court were unsuccessful. This federal habeas petition
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).
grounds for federal habeas relief, Gill alleges (i) his
sentence was illegally enhanced; (ii) he is being denied time
credits; and (iii) defense counsel rendered ineffective
assistance. When liberally construed, these allegations state
claims for relief.
motion for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED as premature.
(Dkt. No. 3.) It is far too early in this litigation to
decide whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.
Gill’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 2.)
Clerk shall mail a copy of this order, the petition and all
attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s
counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California.
The Clerk shall also mail a copy of this order on petitioner.
or before November 25, 2019, respondent
shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, 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 petitioner’s cognizable
claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on
petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record
that previously have been transcribed and that are relevant
to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by
filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on
respondent’s counsel within ...