Green v. Mejia
- William Orrick
- 3:25-cv-01933
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Green v. Mejia, Judge Orrick found Cedric Green’s habeas claims cognizable and ordered a response by November 7, 2025.
Cedric Green’s federal habeas petition will proceed to the response stage. Eric Mejia must file an answer or a procedural motion by November 7, 2025.
What happened
In Green v. Mejia, Cedric Green asked the federal court to review his California robbery conviction and sentence through a habeas petition. He also challenged the handling of a later parole hearing.
Green alleges that California courts violated his federal constitutional rights by applying laws, regulations, and case law that conflict with United States Supreme Court decisions in Johnson v. United States and Sessions v. Dimaya.
Judge William H. Orrick ruled that the petition states claims that can proceed. He ordered Eric Mejia, the acting warden named as respondent, to file an answer or a motion challenging the petition on procedural grounds by November 7, 2025; the order did not decide whether Green should receive habeas relief.
The detailed version
- Green v. Mejia · No. 3:25-cv-01933
- William Orrick
- Sept. 8, 2025
Background
Cedric Green seeks federal habeas review of his California state robbery conviction. The opinion states that a San Mateo County Superior Court jury convicted Green in 1998. The trial court found true two prior attempted-robbery convictions and imposed a sentence of 35 years to life under California’s Three Strikes law. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
The opinion also states that, after the Board of Parole Hearings found Green unsuitable for parole in 2021, Green filed a state habeas petition alleging that his parole hearing violated due process. The San Mateo County Superior Court denied that petition on November 22, 2022. The excerpt provided does not include the remainder of the opinion’s account of the state appellate proceedings.
Claims and screening
The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Green alleges that the California courts violated his federal constitutional rights by applying a “constellation of statutory law, regulations, and case law” contrary to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148 (2018).
The court explained that summary dismissal at this stage is appropriate only when the allegations are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or plainly frivolous or false. It found that, when read liberally, Green’s claims are cognizable, meaning they present claims the federal habeas court may consider.
Order
The court ordered the Clerk to add Eric Mejia, acting warden for the California Institute of Men, as the respondent and to serve the order and petition materials on the respondent and the California Attorney General’s Office. By November 7, 2025, Mejia must file an answer complying with Rule 5 and show why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Instead of an answer, Mejia may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds by that date. If an answer is filed, Green may file a reply within 30 days; if a motion to dismiss is filed, Green may respond within 30 days and Mejia may reply within 15 days.
Judge William H. Orrick did not grant or deny habeas relief and did not decide the ultimate merits of Green’s claims. The order permits the petition to proceed to the respondent’s answer or procedural motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.