Wong v. Diaz
- Jon Tigar
- 4:19-cv-08318
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Wong v. Diaz, Judge Tigar ordered a response to Raymond Edward Wong’s state-custody challenge after finding that his claims did not warrant summary dismissal.
Raymond Edward Wong, Warden Ronald Davis, and the Attorney General of California.
What happened
Wong v. Diaz concerns Raymond Edward Wong’s petition challenging his custody under a state-court judgment. The opinion says Wong was incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison and sought relief under the federal law governing such petitions.
The court reviewed the petition at the initial screening stage. It found that none of Wong’s claims was vague, conclusory, unbelievable, frivolous, or otherwise subject to summary dismissal. The court also directed the clerk to replace Ralph Diaz with Warden Ronald Davis as the respondent because Davis was Wong’s current custodian.
The court ordered Ronald Davis to respond within 91 days by filing an answer or a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Wong could file a response after either filing. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on January 27, 2020.
The detailed version
- Wong v. Diaz · No. 4:19-cv-08318
- Jon Tigar
- Jan. 27, 2020
Background
Raymond Edward Wong, identified in the opinion as an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. That statute allows a person held under a state-court judgment to seek federal review on the ground that the custody violates the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. The petition named Ralph Diaz as the respondent.
Initial review
The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the rules governing Section 2254 cases. At this stage, a court may summarily dismiss a petition when its allegations are vague or conclusory, plainly unbelievable, frivolous, or false. The court stated that none of Wong’s claims warranted summary dismissal.
Order
The court directed the clerk to substitute Warden Ronald Davis as the respondent because Davis was Wong’s current custodian. The clerk was ordered to serve Davis, the Attorney General of California, and Wong with the order and petition.
Davis was ordered to file and serve an answer within 91 days of the order, along with relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. Instead of an answer, Davis could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 91-day period. If Davis filed such a motion, Wong would have 28 days to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition, and Davis would have 14 days after that opposition to file a reply. The court also stated that reasonable extensions could be granted for good cause if requested by the applicable deadline.
This order required the respondent to respond to the petition; it did not decide whether Wong was entitled to the requested relief.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.