1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 CEDRIC GREEN, Case No. 3:25-cv-01933-WHO

5 Petitioner ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 6 v.

7 ERIC MEJIA, Acting Warden for the 8 California Institute of Men,

9 Respondent.

10 11 INTRODUCTION 12 Petitioner Cedric Green seeks federal habeas review from his California state conviction 13 for robbery. The petition for habeas relief is now before me for review pursuant to

2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 15 The petition states cognizable claims. Accordingly, on or before November 7, 2025, 16 respondent shall file an answer or a dispositive motion in response to the habeas petition. 17 BACKGROUND 18 In 1998 Cedric Green was convicted by a San Mateo County Superior Court jury of 19 robbery. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”), Dkt. No. 1, at 36. The trial court found true 20 that Green had two prior convictions for attempted robbery and imposed a sentence of thirty-five 21 years to life under California’s Three Strikes law. Id.; see CAL. PENAL CODE §§ 667.5, 1170.12. 22 On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction and sentence. See Pet. at 8. 23 The California Supreme Court subsequently denied review. See id. at 38. 24 After the Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) found Green unsuitable for parole in 2021, 25 Green filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the San Mateo County Superior Court, alleging 26 a denial of due process at his parole hearing. See id. at 88, 212. On November 22, 2022, the 27 Superior Court denied Green’s petition. See id. at 40–41. The California Court of Appeal and 1 2 DISCUSSION 3 This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 4 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 5 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

(a). A 6 district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue 7 an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it 8 appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28

. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are 10 vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 11

(9th Cir. 1990). 12 As grounds for federal habeas relief, Green alleges that the California courts violated his 13 federal constitutional rights by applying a “constellation of statutory law, regulations, and case 14 law” that are contrary to the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson v. United States, 15

(2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya,

(2018). Pet. at 24. When liberally 16 construed, these claims are cognizable and shall proceed. 17 CONCLUSION 18 1. The Clerk shall add ERIC MEJIA, Acting Warden for the California Institute of Men, as 19 respondent to this case. 20 2. The Clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order upon the respondent and the 21 respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email 22 addresses: [email protected] and [email protected]. The petition and 23 exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of 24 California. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this Order on petitioner. 25 2. On or before November 7, 2025, respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 26 petitioner, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 27 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on petitioner’s 1 portions of the state trial record that previously have been transcribed and that are relevant to a 2 || determination of the issues presented by the petition. 3 3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the 4 || Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the answer is filed. 5 4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, on or before November 7, 2025, a motion to 6 || dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the 7 Rules Governing Section 2254 case. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the 8 || Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) 9 days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner 10 areply within fifteen (15) days of the date any opposition is filed. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: September 8, 2025

5 William H. Orrick nited States District Judge 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28