1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GARY LOUIS BLANK, Case No. 24-cv-07686-WHO (PR)

Petitioner, 8 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9

10 JAMES HILL, Dkt. No. 20 Respondent. 11

12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Petitioner Gary Louis Blank seeks federal habeas relief under

15 from his California state convictions for voluntary manslaughter and first degree robbery. 16 The amended petition for such relief is now before me for review pursuant to

2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 18 The first amended petition states cognizable claims. Accordingly, on or before 19 December 8, 2025, respondent shall file an answer or a dispositive motion in response to 20 the amended habeas petition (Dkt. No. 17). The amended petition discloses that Blank was 21 convicted in 2018. (Am. Pet., Dkt. No. 17 at 1.) He filed the current petition in 2024, 22 which is beyond the one-year filing limit imposed by AEDPA. If respondent concludes 23 that this habeas action is untimely, he may wish to file a motion to dismiss the action on 24 such grounds, though he is not required to do so. 25 Blank’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 20.) 26 BACKGROUND 27 In 2018 Blank pleaded guilty in the Mendocino County Superior Court to charges 1 fourteen years. (Pet., Order Denying State Petition, Dkt. No. 1-3 at 49; Abstract of 2 Judgment,

.) His attempts at overturning his convictions in state court were 3 unsuccessful. This federal habeas petition followed. 4 DISCUSSION 5 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 6 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 7 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 8 § 2254(a). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall 9 “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ 10 should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person 11 detained is not entitled thereto.”

. Summary dismissal is appropriate 12 only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 13 patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez,

(9th Cir. 1990). 14 As grounds for federal habeas relief, Blank claims that (1) the trial court lacked 15 jurisdiction to try him; (2) the trial court did not afford him due process and was not 16 competent to try him; (3) the trial court misrepresented him as a corporation rather than as 17 a person; (4) the trial court impermissibly applied statutes to him; (5) his right to Double 18 Jeopardy was violated; (6) the trial court made him liable for a surety bond; (7) his 19 attorney provided constitutionally inadequate advice; and (8) his plea was not knowing and 20 voluntary. (Am. Pet., Dkt. No. 17 at 3-7, 11-27.) 21 After a defendant has entered a plea of guilty, the only challenges left open on 22 federal habeas corpus review concern the voluntary and intelligent character of the plea 23 and the adequacy of the advice of counsel. Hill v. Lockhart,

(1985); 24 Tollett v. Henderson,

(1973). There are exceptions to this general rule. 25 For example, a defendant who pleads guilty still may raise in habeas corpus proceedings 26 the very power of the state to bring him into court to answer the charge brought against 27 him, see Haring v. Prosise,

(1983) (citing Blackledge v. Perry,

(1975)). 2 Under these rules, only Claim 1 (lack of jurisdiction), Claim 5 (Double Jeopardy), 3 Claim 7 (counsel’s advice was constitutionally inadequate), and Claim 8 (plea was not 4 knowing and voluntary) are cognizable and may proceed. All other claims are 5 DISMISSED. 6 Blank’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED as unnecessary. (Dkt. No. 20.) 7 This Order to Show Cause requires respondent to respond to his claims. A motion for 8 summary judgment is unnecessary under these circumstances and is not an appropriate 9 vehicle to use in habeas proceedings. 10 CONCLUSION 11 1. The Clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order upon the respondent and 12 the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following 13 email addresses: [email protected] and [email protected]. The 14 amended petition (Dkt. No. 17) and the exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic 15 Case Filing System for the Northern District of California. The Clerk shall serve by mail a 16 copy of this Order on petitioner. 17 2. On or before December 8, 2025, respondent shall file with the Court and serve 18 on petitioner, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 19 Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted 20 based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve 21 on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have been 22 transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 23 3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse 24 with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the 25 answer is filed. 26 4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, on or before December 8, 2025, a 27 motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to 1 || petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of 2 || non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall 3 || file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any 4 || opposition is filed. 5 5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on 6 || respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. 7 6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the 8 || Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the 9 || Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this 10 || action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 11 7. 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. 5 13 8. Blank’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 20.) S 14 9. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: July 23, 2025 | i . \f 7 ILLIAM H. ORRICK 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28