INTRODUCTION

13 Petitioner Jarol J. Blandon-Villagra seeks federal habeas relief from his state 14 robbery convictions. The petition for habeas relief is now before the court for review 15 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 16 The petition states a cognizable claim. Accordingly, on or before March 3, 2023, 17 respondent shall file an answer or a dispositive motion in response to the operative habeas 18 petition. In that regard, the petition discloses that Blandon-Villagra was convicted in 2018. 19 He filed the current petition in 2022, which is beyond the 1-year filing limit imposed by 20 AEDPA. If respondent concludes that this habeas action is untimely, he may wish to file a 21 motion to dismiss the action on such grounds, though he is not required to do so. 22 The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Gregory J. Ahern, the current 23 custodian of petitioner, is the sole respondent in this action, and shall terminate the 24 Alameda County Superior Court as a respondent.1 25 26 1 Ahern is the sole proper respondent in this action, as he is the custodian having day-to- 27 day control over petitioner, the only person who can produce “the body” of the petitioner. 1 BACKGROUND 2 According to the petition, in 2018 Blandon-Villagra pleaded guilty in the Alameda 3 County Superior Court to robbery charges. (Pet., Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2.) A sentence of eight 4 years was imposed. It does not appear that Blandon-Villagra filed a direct appeal or any 5 petitions for state collateral relief. (Id. at 2-4.) 6 DISCUSSION 7 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 8 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 9 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2254(a). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall 11 “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ 12 should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person 13 detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate 14 only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 15 patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 16 As grounds for federal habeas relief, Blandon-Villagra alleges that (1) his speedy 17 trial rights were violated; and (2) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Only 18 Claim 2 is cognizable and will proceed. Claim 1 cannot proceed because Blandon-Villagra 19 pleaded guilty. After a defendant has entered a plea of guilty, the only challenges left open 20 on federal habeas corpus review concern the (i) voluntary and intelligent character of the 21 plea and (ii) adequacy of the advice of counsel.2 Womack v. Del Papa, 497 F.3d 998, 1002 22 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-57 (1985)). 23 24 25

26 2 There are exceptions to this general bar. For example, a defendant who pleads guilty still may raise in habeas corpus proceedings the very power of the state to bring him into court 27 to answer the charge brought against him, see Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 320 (1983) 1 CONCLUSION 2 1. The Clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order upon the respondent and 3 the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following 4 email addresses: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov and docketingsfawt@doj.ca.gov. The 5 petition and the exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the 6 Northern District of California. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order on 7 petitioner. 8 2. On or before March 3, 2023, respondent shall file with the court and serve on 9 petitioner, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 10 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on 11 petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on 12 petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have been 13 transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 14 3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse 15 with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the 16 answer is filed. 17 4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, on or before March 3, 2023, a motion 18 to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 19 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner 20 shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non- 21 opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file 22 with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any 23 opposition is filed. 24 5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on 25 respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. 26 6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the 27 court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s 1 || failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 2 7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will 3 || be granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend. 4 8. The filing fee has been paid. (Dkt. No. 1.) 5 9. The Clerk shall modify the docket to reflect that Gregory J. Ahern is the sole 6 || respondent in this action. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: December 7, 2022 | ( “VQe ® ? LLIAM H. ORRICK 10 United States District Judge 11 qa 12

13

© 15 16

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28