Marchant v. Anglea

Background

David Alan Marchant, identified as an inmate at Sierra Conservation Center, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking for federal habeas relief from state-court custody. The court reviewed the petition under the federal habeas screening statute and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a federal habeas petition may challenge state custody only on the ground that the custody violates the Constitution, federal laws, or federal treaties. It also explained that summary dismissal—dismissal at the initial review stage—is appropriate when a petition’s allegations are vague, conclusory, clearly unbelievable, frivolous, or false.

The court concluded that none of Marchant’s claims warranted summary dismissal. The opinion does not decide whether any claim ultimately entitles Marchant to habeas relief.

Order

The court ordered service of the order on Hunter Anglea, Anglea’s attorney, and the Attorney General of the State of California, and directed the Clerk to serve Marchant as well. Within 91 days of the order, Anglea must file and serve either:

- an answer complying with Rule 5, showing why habeas relief should not be granted, along with relevant previously transcribed portions of the state trial record; or - a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer.

If an answer is filed, Marchant may file and serve a response called a traverse within 35 days after the answer is filed. If a procedural motion to dismiss is filed, Marchant has 28 days to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition, and Anglea has 14 days after that filing to submit a reply. The court stated that reasonable extensions would be granted for good cause if requested by the applicable deadline.

Judge Tigar therefore issued an order to show cause and allowed the petition to proceed beyond initial screening. The order did not grant or deny habeas relief.