Edgar M. Hendricks v. Daniel Vasquez, Warden Attorney Gen. of the State of California, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Edgar M. Hendricks v. Daniel Vasquez, Warden Attorney Gen. of the State of California, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

A court must reverse a summary dismissal under Rule 4 if it subsequently grants a certificate of appealability (requiring reversal where court summarily dismissed under Rule 4 but granted certificate).

A state prisoner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was summarily dismissed by the district court. Although the respondents argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the petition was not verified by the petitioner, the court held that a district court may disregard a lack of verification and exercise jurisdiction. Regarding the merits, the court determined that a habeas petition may only be summarily dismissed if it plainly appears from the petition and its exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Because the petition contained specific claims and citations, it was not patently frivolous or incredible, necessitating reversal of the dismissal.

701 citation events (682 in the last 25 years) across 25 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Holiday v. United States, No. 3:25-cv-00082 (S.D. Cal. July 28, 2025) · Strongest negative: Miles v. State, 91 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2004)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#14 28 U.S.C. § 2242 cited 1× in this case · 2,295 total citations of statute
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 491 Criteria for summary dismissal of habeas petitions552 citing casescollecting cases160 citing courts put it this way · 201 listed here · 1 cautionary
  • Miles v. State, 91 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2004).published Cited "but see" · 3 cites
    (holding that the district court erred in “summarily dismissing [post-conviction] habeas petition on the merits” despite the lack of a proper verification)
  • Holiday v. United States, No. 3:25-cv-00082 (S.D. Cal. July 28, 2025).
    (Summary 21 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are ‘vague or conclusory’ 22 or ‘palpably incredible,’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.’)
  • Hernandez v. United States, No. 3:23-cv-01319 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2024).
    (Summary 12 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are ‘vague or conclusory’ 13 or ‘palpably incredible,’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.’)
  • Patrick Neiss v. Pete Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038 (9th Cir. 2024).published 3 cites
    (The petition does not meet the standard for summary dismissal. Hendricks set forth his claims for relief with specificity, and included relevant citations to the state court record. His claims, when unanswered, cannot…)
  • Alan Douglas v. Superior Ct of California for Los Angeles Cnty., No. 2:20-cv-07524 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2020).
    (Summary dismissal is 20 appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are ‘vague 21 [or] conclusory” or palpably incredible . . . ‘or patently 22 frivolous or false.’)
  • Haynes, No. 3:25-cv-03670 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2026).
    Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 9 Haynes’s prior claim was similarly conclusory in the Statement of Claims section of 10 the petition form (“Insufficient Evidence”), but his attached state supreme court petition 11…
  • Santacruz, No. 1:26-cv-03884 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2026).
    Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 8 Because Petitioner alleges no facts about what occurred at the bond hearing and why the 9 proceedings were constitutionally defective, his conclusory assertions that the proceeding…
  • Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-05632 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2026).
    Hendricks 15 v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 16 Here, Petitioner identifies several factors that an IJ properly may consider in determining 17 whether a detainee is a danger to the community or a risk of flight.
  • Jon Logan Kennison v. Jeremy Bean, et al., No. 2:26-cv-02208 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2026).
    (collecting cases)
  • Warden, No. 1:26-cv-07054 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2026).
    Summary dismissal is appropriate when a 9 petition is “patently frivolous or false.” Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 10 Here, Petitioner’s assertions that he has been declared “King and God through Court 11 declara…
Show 191 more citing cases
At page 492 Reversing summary dismissal when certificate is granted11 citing casesrequiring reversal where court summarily dismissed under Rule 4 but granted certificate8 citing courts put it this way
Show 1 more citing case
At page 490 “if it plainly appears from the petition...that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”1 citing case15 citing courts quote it · passage not found verbatim in the opinion (85%)
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edgar M. HENDRICKS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Daniel VASQUEZ, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees
89-16022.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 12, 1990.
Published opinion
908 F.2d 490
1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 11583
1990 WL 94794
William M. Goodman, Topel & Goodman, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner-appellant., Martin S. Kaye, Deputy Atty. Gen. and Charles R.B. Kirk, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for respondents-appellees.
Goodwin, Canby, Rymer.
Cited by 585 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 69%
Citer courts: C.D. California (1)
GOODWIN, Chief Judge:

Edgar M. Hendricks, a California state prisoner sentenced to death, appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We reverse and remand.

The facts leading to Hendricks’s conviction and sentence are set forth in People v. Hendricks, 44 Cal.3d 635, 640-41, 244 Cal.Rptr. 181, 183-84, 749 P.2d 836, 838-39 (Cal.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 900, 109 S.Ct. 247, 102 L.Ed.2d 236 (1988).

On August 7, 1989, Hendricks filed a 69-page petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Two days later, the district court summarily dismissed Hendricks’s petition, following a brief hearing. The district court addressed none of the fifteen claims asserted in the petition. In conjunction with the summary dismissal, the district court granted Hendricks’s request for a stay of execution and issued a certificate of probable cause to appeal, thereby qualifying the appeal to be filed.

Preliminarily, the respondents contend that the district court was without jurisdiction to consider Hendricks’s petition because, although the petition was signed by Hendricks’s counsel, it was not signed and verified by Hendricks, as required by Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and 28 U.S.C. § 2242. Because we reverse for substantive reasons, the failure to verify the petition is a defect that can be remedied on remand.

The respondents cite no authority for the proposition that it is reversible error for the district court to address the merits of an unverified petition. The district court may refuse to file, or may dismiss, an unsigned and unverified petition. In re Application of Gibson, 218 F.2d 320 (9th Cir.1954) (affirming the district court’s refusal to file an unverified petition), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 955, 75 S.Ct. 445, 99 L.Ed. 746 (1955); Buckley v. United States, 494 F.Supp. 1000, 1002 (E.D.Ken.1980) (dismissing unverified petition). However, the defect is one that the district court may, if it sees fit, disregard. Morris v. United States, 399 F.Supp. 720, 723 (E.D.Va.1975) (addressing the petitioner’s constitutional claim despite the lack of verification); Cresta v. Eisenstadt, 302 F.Supp. 399, 401 (D.Mass.1969) (addressing the merits of an unverified petition signed by the petitioner’s counsel where the respondent failed to raise the issue); Lewis v. Connett, 291 F.Supp. 583, 585 (W.D.Ark.1968) (finding that the petitioner’s failure to verify the petition did not preclude the district court from exercising jurisdiction). Indeed, Rule 2(e) provides that a petition which does not meet Rule 2’s requirements “may be returned to the petitioner, if a [district court] judge ... so directs.”

Hendricks contends that the district court erred in summarily dismissing his habeas petition on the merits. We agree.

The district court may enter an order for the summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court_” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (West 1977). Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are “vague [or] conclusory” or “palpably incredible”, Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629-30, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977) (quoting Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495, 82 S.Ct. 510, 514, 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962)), or “patently frivolous or false.” Id. at 76, 97 S.Ct. at 1630 (quoting Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116, 119, 76 S.Ct. 223, 225, 100 L.Ed. 126 (1956)).

The petition does not meet the standard for summary dismissal. Hendricks set forth his claims for relief with specificity, and included relevant citations to the state[*492] court record. His claims, when unanswered, cannot be characterized as so incredible or frivolous as to warrant summary dismissal. Indeed, the district judge stated: “I don’t feel I could find that the petition is patently frivolous.” We, of course, express no opinion on the ultimate merits.

We also agree with the Second Circuit that summary dismissal followed by the issuance of a certificate of probable cause is “intrinsically contradictory” and warrants reversal. Dory v. Commissioner of Correction of State of New York, 865 F.2d 44, 45-46 (2d Cir.1989).

We reverse the summary dismissal and remand the case to the district court so that the respondents may answer and the court may conduct further appropriate proceedings.

On remand, Hendricks should sign and verify his habeas petition.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.