California Form MC-275 is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus that any person held in custody under a California court order uses to challenge the legality of that custody before a state court. The form is published by the Judicial Council of California under the rule-making authority of California Rules of Court 4.551, and the version most readers will hold today carries the Rev. January 1, 2019 revision date stamped in the lower-left corner of page one.
Filing this form wrong has hard consequences. The California Department of Justice and county superior courts together process tens of thousands of habeas petitions every year, and roughly 70% are summarily denied at the screening stage, with most denials traced to defective MC-275 forms — missing facts, blank verifications, or unsworn signatures, according to data from the Habeas Corpus Resource Center.
In this guide you will learn:
- 📝 How to fill out every box on MC-275 line by line, with sample entries
- ⚖️ How to plead each ground for relief so the court actually reaches the merits
- 📬 How to file by mail, in person, through the prison mailroom, or by e-filing
- ⏰ How to avoid timeliness traps under In re Robbins and In re Clark
- 🚫 The 10 most common mistakes that get petitions denied — and how to dodge them
What the Form Is and Who Must File It
Form MC-275 is California’s official Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the legal vehicle a prisoner uses to ask a state court to order their release or correct an illegal sentence. The right to the writ is anchored in Article I, Section 11 of the California Constitution and the procedural rules live in Penal Code sections 1473 through 1475.
Anyone in physical or constructive custody of the State of California can file. That includes people held in a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation prison, a county jail awaiting trial, a youth facility under the Division of Juvenile Justice, a person on parole, a person on post-release community supervision, and even a person on probation. A person fully discharged from custody usually cannot use MC-275 — they need a Penal Code 1473.7 motion instead.
The form is filed in a state court, not in federal court. Federal habeas relief uses a different vehicle under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a federal judge will not look at your case until you exhaust state remedies — which is exactly what MC-275 is for. Filing MC-275 protects your federal one-year deadline under the AEDPA by tolling the clock while the state petition is pending.
The receiving court depends on what you are challenging. A challenge to a conviction or sentence goes to the superior court that entered the judgment, a challenge to prison conditions or a parole denial goes to the superior court of the county where you are confined, and a challenge already denied at the trial level can move up to the California Court of Appeal and then the California Supreme Court under Rules of Court 8.380–8.388.
Before You Start: Documents and Information You Need
Pull every document below before you open MC-275. Filing without them forces you to guess at dates, case numbers, and facts, and a single wrong digit can sink the petition. The Prison Law Office recommends building a personal “habeas binder” before you write a single word.
- Your abstract of judgment. This one-page CDCR document lists your case number, conviction counts, and sentence; without it, Box 2 and Box 4 will be wrong, and the court clerk may reject the filing for failing to identify the underlying judgment.
- Your CDCR number and housing assignment. This goes in the caption and on the proof of service; a missing CDCR number causes mail to bounce inside the prison mailroom.
- The trial court case number. You will copy this onto Box 4; using the appellate case number by mistake routes your petition to the wrong court.
- Sentencing minute order and reporter’s transcripts. These are exhibits that prove what happened at sentencing; without them the court can refuse to find a prima facie case under Rule 4.551(c).
- Any prior habeas petitions you have filed. Box 14 asks about them; concealing a prior petition triggers a successive-petition bar under In re Clark.
- Direct-appeal opinion, if any. Needed for Box 11 and to show why the issue could not be raised on appeal.
- Names, dates, and addresses for every witness or supporting declarant. Bare allegations without supporting facts are the number-one reason for summary denial.
- A current trust-account statement if you plan to ask for a fee waiver in a Court of Appeal filing using Form MC-200.
- Stamps, envelopes, and a copy machine. You file the original plus one copy and you keep one copy for yourself.
Where to Get the Form and How to Access It
The official, current MC-275 lives on the Judicial Council’s forms portal as a fillable PDF, and the only safe way to download it is from the Judicial Council itself at courts.ca.gov forms. Third-party blogs sometimes host outdated copies that the clerk will reject on sight.
Inside a CDCR facility, the prison law library is required to keep a current paper supply under 15 CCR § 3122. If your law library is out of stock, fill out a CDCR Form 22 Inmate Request and ask the librarian to print one from the Lexis prison terminal or order it through inter-library loan. Holding a current copy in your hand matters because the Rev. January 1, 2019 version added the verification block that older 2007 versions lacked.
People outside the prison can pick up paper copies at any superior court clerk’s window for free, or print the PDF on plain white 8.5-by-11 paper. The form must be printed single-sided — the court’s optical scanners reject duplex pages, which jams the docketing process for weeks.
You can complete the PDF on a computer using Adobe Acrobat Reader, but you must still print and ink-sign it before filing because most superior courts do not yet accept e-signatures on habeas petitions. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court do accept e-filed petitions through TrueFiling, and the Supreme Court e-submission rules explain the upload steps.
Step-by-Step: How to Fill Out Form MC-275 Line by Line
This is the heart of the article. Each box has its own subsection so you can match the article to the form in front of you. Italicized text shows what an actual filer writes on the page.
Caption — Court Name and County
The caption sits at the top of page one and tells the clerk which court is supposed to receive the petition. You write the full court name on the first line, such as Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and the branch address directly underneath.
To answer it, copy the court name exactly as it appears on your abstract of judgment, then add the courthouse street address printed in the court directory. Maria Lopez, who was sentenced in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, writes Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles — 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
The most common nuance is when the petitioner is challenging prison conditions rather than the conviction. In that case the caption goes to the county where the prison sits, not where the conviction happened, so a person at Pelican Bay challenging a SHU placement files in Del Norte County Superior Court.
A common mistake is captioning the petition in the appellate court while still arguing trial-level facts. The direct consequence is automatic transfer or dismissal under Rule 8.385(c) because the appellate court will not exercise original habeas jurisdiction without a showing of why the lower court cannot hear it first.
The misconception worth correcting is that “California Supreme Court” sounds more powerful so it must be the right venue. It is not. The Supreme Court routinely transfers original petitions back down under the rule of exhaustion of lower-court remedies.
Petitioner Name and CDCR Number
This box asks who is bringing the petition. Write your full legal name as it appears on your judgment, then your CDCR or county booking number directly after it.
Carlos Mendez, sentenced under his birth name, writes Carlos Mendez, CDCR No. AB1234 on the petitioner line. Use all capital letters only if the form’s printed sample uses caps; otherwise sentence case is fine.
The nuance comes up when the petitioner uses a different name day-to-day. You must use the name on the judgment because the court matches petitions to dockets through that exact string. List any alias in parentheses — for example Carlos Mendez (a/k/a Carlos M. Reyes) — so the clerk can find prior filings.
A common mistake is leaving the CDCR number off. The consequence is delayed mail; the prison mailroom uses the CDCR number, not your name, to route legal correspondence, and a missing number can bounce the court’s response back to the clerk for weeks.
The misconception is that filing under a nickname or street name protects privacy. It does not. Habeas petitions are public records under Government Code § 68150, and using an alias only hides your own prior filings from the judge reviewing for successiveness.
Respondent Name
The respondent is the official who has legal custody over you, not the State of California in the abstract. For a CDCR prisoner that is the warden of your current institution; for a county jail inmate it is the county sheriff.
Aisha Brown, housed at Central California Women’s Facility, writes Warden, Central California Women’s Facility on the respondent line. The CDCR facility directory gives the official institutional names.
The nuance involves transfers. If you transfer mid-petition, the new warden becomes the proper respondent automatically under Rule 4.551(b), but you should file a one-page notice of change to keep the docket clean.
The mistake to avoid is naming “The People of the State of California” as respondent. That is correct on a direct appeal but wrong on habeas, and the court can deny the petition for naming the wrong party.
The misconception is that you must name the warden by personal name (e.g., Warden John Smith). You do not. Warden and the institution name is enough, and using a personal name that has changed since you filed is a frequent source of clerical confusion.
Box 1 — Place of Confinement
Box 1 asks where you are physically held. Write the full institution name, the city, and the county.
Janet Park writes California Institution for Women, Corona, San Bernardino County. The county matters because it controls venue for conditions petitions.
The nuance is for petitioners on parole or post-release community supervision. They write Parole — [home address] because the “custody” for habeas purposes is the parole hold itself.
A common mistake is writing only “CDCR” without the specific facility. The consequence is that the court cannot serve the right warden, which delays the response and may toll-bar your federal AEDPA clock when the state docket stalls.
The misconception is that county jail pretrial detainees can’t use MC-275. They can. Pretrial habeas is fully available under Penal Code § 1473.
Box 2 — Why You Are in Custody
Box 2 asks the legal basis for your custody. Most petitioners check Conviction and sentence and write the offense, code section, and sentence imposed.
Marcus Reed writes Conviction and sentence — PC 211 (robbery), 2nd-strike, 12 years state prison, sentenced 06/14/2019. Pull every digit from the abstract of judgment so it matches the court’s records exactly.
The nuance covers parole revocation holds. Check the “Other” box and write Parole revocation — 180 days, [date imposed], [parole region] and attach the BPH revocation order.
A field-level mistake is listing only the lead count when you were sentenced on multiple counts. The consequence is that any relief granted may not reach the unlisted counts, leaving you partially incarcerated even after a “win.”
The misconception is that civil commitments under the Sexually Violent Predator Act cannot be challenged on MC-275. They can; SVP commitments are “custody” for habeas.
Box 3 — Why You Are in Custody (continued / sentence details)
Box 3 expands on Box 2 by asking for the date of the judgment, the sentencing judge, and the length of the term. Copy each detail from the abstract.
Maria Lopez writes Date of judgment: 03/14/2019. Judge: Hon. Patricia Kim. Term: 25 years to life with possibility of parole.
The nuance is enhancements. List each enhancement separately — for example PC 12022.53(d) — 25-to-life consecutive — because you may be challenging the enhancement, not the underlying count.
The mistake is omitting the to-life tail on indeterminate sentences. The consequence is that a court reviewing for prima facie merit may misread your release date and conclude the petition is moot.
The misconception is that a stayed term need not be listed. List it. The court tracks both stayed and executed time, and a future un-stay can revive a sentence you thought was gone.
Box 4 — Court Case Number
Box 4 takes the trial-court case number that appears on the abstract of judgment. It is usually a letter prefix and six or seven digits, such as BA123456 in Los Angeles or SCD234567 in San Diego.
Carlos Mendez writes BA456789 exactly as printed on his abstract. Do not add spaces or punctuation that are not on the source document.
The nuance is consolidated cases. Where two cases were tried together, list both, separated by a slash — BA456789 / BA456790 — so the court pulls both files.
The mistake is using your appellate case number (a “B” or “C” prefix in California). The consequence is that the clerk cannot match the petition to the trial docket and may return it unfiled.
The misconception is that “the case number is in your CDCR central file.” Sometimes it is, but central files are notorious for typos; always copy from the abstract of judgment, which is the controlling document.
Box 5 — Grounds for Relief: Ground 1
Box 5 is where the petition lives or dies. State one legal ground, name it clearly, and back it with specific facts.
Aisha Brown writes Ground 1: Ineffective assistance of trial counsel under the Sixth Amendment and People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171 — counsel failed to investigate alibi witness Jamal Carter despite written notice. She then attaches a five-page declaration laying out exactly what counsel did and did not do.
The nuance is the prima facie standard from People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464. You must plead facts that, if true, would entitle you to relief. Conclusions like “my lawyer was bad” are not facts.
The mistake is bundling three or four grounds into Box 5. The consequence is that the court may treat the bundled claims as a single ground and deny the others as inadequately pled.
The misconception is that legal jargon impresses the judge. It does not. Plain, dated, named facts win habeas petitions.
Box 6 — Supporting Facts for Ground 1
Box 6 demands the who, what, when, where, and how behind the legal label in Box 5. Use dated, named, paragraph-numbered facts.
Marcus Reed writes On 02/03/2019, trial counsel Mr. Davis met with petitioner for 11 minutes at MCJ. Petitioner gave counsel the name and address of alibi witness Jamal Carter (declaration attached as Exhibit A). Counsel never contacted Mr. Carter.
The nuance is attaching exhibits. Each exhibit gets a letter — Exhibit A, Exhibit B — and a one-line description on a separate index page. Reference the exhibit inside Box 6 by its letter.
The mistake is writing argument instead of facts. The consequence is summary denial under Rule 4.551(g), which calls the pleading “conclusory.”
The misconception is that you can hide weak facts and the court will find the strong ones in your exhibits. The court will not. The judge reads Box 6 first and may stop there.
Box 7 — Ground 2 and Supporting Facts
Box 7 is structurally identical to Box 5–6 but for your second legal ground. Each ground stands on its own.
Janet Park writes Ground 2: Brady violation — the prosecution suppressed lab notes showing a partial DNA match to a third party. See Exhibits C–E.
The nuance is that grounds must be non-overlapping. If Ground 1 is ineffective assistance for not pursuing DNA, Ground 2 should not be ineffective assistance for not pursuing DNA again — collapse them.
The mistake is leaving Ground 2 blank when you actually have a second issue. The consequence is the Dixon bar under In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, which forfeits unraised grounds.
The misconception is that you can “save” grounds for a second petition. The successive-petition rule of In re Clark usually bars that strategy.
Box 8 — Ground 3 and Supporting Facts
Box 8 mirrors Boxes 5–7 for a third ground. Use a continuation page if you need more space, labeled Attachment 8 — Ground 3 Continued.
Maria Lopez writes Ground 3: Newly discovered evidence under Penal Code § 1473(b)(3) — recantation of co-defendant Luis Vega, declaration attached as Exhibit F.
The nuance is that newly discovered evidence must be evidence that could not have been found earlier through reasonable diligence. Plead the diligence facts, not just the new evidence.
The mistake is failing to date the discovery. The consequence is that the court treats the claim as untimely under In re Robbins without ever reaching the merits.
The misconception is that any recantation qualifies. Courts are skeptical of recantations; corroboration matters.
Box 9 — Did You Appeal?
Box 9 asks whether you appealed your conviction. Check Yes or No, then list the appellate case number, the date of decision, and the disposition.
Carlos Mendez writes Yes — Court of Appeal, Second District, B298765, affirmed 04/22/2021. Petition for review denied 07/14/2021, S270000.
The nuance is partial appeals. If you appealed only sentencing, write that, because the court tracks claim-preclusion ground by ground.
The mistake is leaving Box 9 blank to “keep options open.” The consequence is that the court may dismiss for failure to disclose direct-appeal history, which looks like an attempt to mislead.
The misconception is that an unsuccessful appeal forecloses habeas. It does not. Habeas reaches issues that could not have been raised on appeal — typically those depending on facts outside the trial record.
Box 10 — Issues Raised on Appeal
Box 10 lists the issues you raised on direct appeal. List each one in a numbered sentence.
Aisha Brown writes (1) Insufficient evidence of intent; (2) Improper CALCRIM 224 instruction; (3) Cumulative error.
The nuance is the In re Waltreus bar — issues already decided on direct appeal cannot be relitigated on habeas. Listing them honestly helps the court draw the line.
The mistake is paraphrasing the appellate brief inaccurately. The consequence is that the court may misapply Waltreus and deny a habeas claim that was not actually raised on appeal.
The misconception is that listing fewer issues helps you. It does not — full disclosure is mandatory and dishonest omissions are sanctionable.
Box 11 — Why Were Issues Not Raised on Appeal
Box 11 asks why each new habeas ground was not raised on direct appeal. Most petitioners answer with one of three reasons: the facts were outside the record, counsel was ineffective for not raising it, or the law changed.
Marcus Reed writes Ground 1 depends on counsel’s pre-trial investigation, which is outside the appellate record. Ground 2 depends on Brady material disclosed only after the appeal concluded.
The nuance is retroactive law changes under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740. When a statute changes after your judgment becomes final, plead the date of the change and the date of finality.
The mistake is writing “I didn’t know I could.” Ignorance of the law is not a Dixon-bar excuse. The consequence is procedural default of the unraised ground.
The misconception is that you can blame appellate counsel without filing a separate IAC-of-appellate-counsel claim. You cannot. If appellate counsel was ineffective, plead it as its own ground.
Box 12 — Prior Petitions in This Court
Box 12 asks whether you have filed prior habeas petitions in this same court. Disclose every one — date filed, case number, and disposition.
Janet Park writes (1) 11/03/2022, BA456789-WHP1, denied 12/15/2022.
The nuance is that Marsden motions and resentencing motions are not habeas petitions; do not list them in Box 12.
The mistake is omitting a denied prior petition. The consequence is the Clark successive-petition bar plus a credibility hit that taints every claim in the new petition.
The misconception is that summarily denied petitions “don’t count.” They do count, and clerks check the docket.
Box 13 — Prior Petitions in Other California Courts
Box 13 asks the same question for other state courts — Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, or other superior courts. List each one.
Maria Lopez writes Court of Appeal, 2d Dist., B312345, denied 06/01/2023; Cal. Supreme Court, S280000, denied 09/13/2023.
The nuance is original versus transferred petitions. Note which is which because Supreme Court denials of original petitions carry different preclusive weight than denials of petitions for review.
The mistake is listing federal § 2254 petitions here. The consequence is clerical confusion; federal petitions go in Box 14, not 13.
The misconception is that pending petitions need not be disclosed. They must be — pending petitions can render the new one abusive under Clark.
Box 14 — Prior Petitions in Federal Court
Box 14 captures any § 2254 federal habeas filings. List the federal district, case number, and status.
Carlos Mendez writes N.D. Cal., 4:23-cv-04567-JST, stayed and abeyed pending state exhaustion.
The nuance is stay-and-abeyance under Rhines v. Weber (2005) 544 U.S. 269. Filing MC-275 while a federal petition is stayed is the standard exhaustion path; say so plainly.
The mistake is filing MC-275 after a federal petition is dismissed without prejudice for non-exhaustion, without checking your AEDPA clock. The consequence is a federal time bar that no state filing can fix.
The misconception is that federal courts will “wait” for the state. They will, but only if you file the right stay motion at the right time.
Box 15 — Attorney Information
Box 15 asks whether you have an attorney for this petition. If self-represented, write Pro se.
Aisha Brown writes Pro se — petitioner is in propria persona. If counsel is appointed or retained, list the attorney’s name, State Bar of California number, and address.
The nuance is limited-scope counsel. If a lawyer drafted the petition but is not appearing, note the ghostwriter under Rule 3.37 — the rules do permit it for self-represented filers.
The mistake is listing trial counsel here. The consequence is that the court mails responses to a lawyer who no longer represents you, and you miss deadlines.
The misconception is that pro se filers are held to a lower standard. They are not on substance, but courts do construe pro se pleadings liberally under Haines v. Kerner.
Verification — Signature Under Penalty of Perjury
The verification block at the end of MC-275 is the most-blown line on the form. You must sign under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, write the place of execution, and date it.
Marcus Reed writes I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 05/02/2026 at Solano State Prison, Vacaville, CA. /s/ Marcus Reed.
The nuance is for petitions drafted by counsel. Counsel may sign as attorney, but the petitioner must still personally verify the facts unless they are physically or mentally incapable, in which case attach an MC-031 declaration explaining why.
The mistake is signing without the under penalty of perjury language. The consequence is fatal — under Code of Civil Procedure § 446 an unverified petition is treated as no petition at all.
The misconception is that a notary is required. A notary is not required for California habeas verifications; the under penalty of perjury declaration replaces notarization under CCP § 2015.5.
Proof of Service
The proof of service is technically a separate page — usually POS-040 — but it must accompany every MC-275. It tells the court that you served a copy on the Attorney General and the District Attorney that prosecuted the case.
Janet Park writes I served the foregoing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by depositing a copy in the institutional mail at California Institution for Women on 05/02/2026, addressed to: Office of the Attorney General, 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013, and Los Angeles County District Attorney, 211 W. Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
The nuance is the prison mailbox rule from Houston v. Lack (1988) 487 U.S. 266, adopted in California by In re Jordan (1992) 4 Cal.4th 116. The petition is “filed” the day you hand it to prison staff for mailing, not the day it arrives.
The mistake is using a non-incarcerated proof-of-service form (POS-030) when the Proof of Service by Inmate (POS-040) is the correct one. The consequence is that the court may not credit the prison mailbox rule, costing you weeks of timeliness.
The misconception is that the warden is the AG and so service on the warden is enough. It is not — you must serve the Office of the Attorney General and the prosecuting DA separately.
Three Filled-Out Examples Using Real Scenarios
Scenario 1 — Maria Lopez, Pro Se Lifer Filing IAC and Newly-Discovered-Evidence Claims
Maria is serving 25-to-life in Chowchilla and is filing her first state habeas after losing her direct appeal. She has a co-defendant recantation declaration in hand.
| Form Section | What Maria Enters |
|---|---|
| Caption | Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles |
| Petitioner | Maria Lopez, CDCR No. WX5678 |
| Respondent | Warden, Central California Women’s Facility |
| Box 1 — Place of Confinement | CCWF, Chowchilla, Madera County |
| Box 2 — Why in Custody | Conviction and sentence — PC 187(a), 25-to-life, sentenced 03/14/2019 |
| Box 4 — Case Number | BA456789 |
| Box 5 — Ground 1 | Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate alibi (Strickland/Ledesma) |
| Box 8 — Ground 3 | Newly discovered evidence — co-defendant recantation, Exhibit F |
| Box 9 — Direct Appeal | Yes — B298765, affirmed 04/22/2021; review denied S270000 07/14/2021 |
| Box 12 — Prior Habeas | None |
| Verification | Signed under penalty of perjury, executed 05/02/2026 at Chowchilla |
Scenario 2 — Marcus Reed, Pretrial Detainee Challenging Bail and Speedy-Trial Violations
Marcus is held at Men’s Central Jail in Los Angeles awaiting trial. He has been in custody 14 months and his last Penal Code § 1382 date passed without a trial.
| Form Section | What Marcus Enters |
|---|---|
| Caption | Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles |
| Petitioner | Marcus Reed, LASD Booking No. 5544332 |
| Respondent | Sheriff, Los Angeles County |
| Box 1 — Place of Confinement | Men’s Central Jail, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County |
| Box 2 — Why in Custody | Pretrial detention — PC 459, no bail hold |
| Box 4 — Case Number | BA778899 (pretrial) |
| Box 5 — Ground 1 | Speedy-trial violation under PC 1382 — last 0-of-60 date 04/01/2026 |
| Box 7 — Ground 2 | Excessive bail under Cal. Const. Art. I § 12 and In re Humphrey |
| Box 9 — Direct Appeal | N/A — no judgment yet |
| Box 12 — Prior Habeas | None |
| Verification | Signed under penalty of perjury, executed 05/02/2026 at MCJ |
Scenario 3 — Aisha Brown, Represented Petitioner Filing in the Court of Appeal After Superior-Court Denial
Aisha’s first MC-275 was denied in Riverside Superior Court. Her appointed counsel is now refiling the petition originally in the Court of Appeal under Rule 8.385.
| Form Section | What Aisha’s Counsel Enters |
|---|---|
| Caption | Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two |
| Petitioner | Aisha Brown, CDCR No. WB7788 |
| Respondent | Warden, California Institution for Women |
| Box 1 — Place of Confinement | CIW, Corona, San Bernardino County |
| Box 2 — Why in Custody | Conviction and sentence — PC 211/12022.53(d), 32-to-life, sentenced 09/01/2018 |
| Box 4 — Case Number | RIF1700123 (Riverside Superior Court) |
| Box 5 — Ground 1 | Brady violation — suppressed lab notes, Exhibits C–E |
| Box 12 — Prior Habeas | Riverside Sup. Ct., RIC2200456-WHP, denied 08/12/2025 |
| Box 15 — Attorney | Jane Roe, SBN 222333, [firm address] |
| Verification | Signed by petitioner under penalty of perjury, executed 05/02/2026 at CIW |
How to File the Completed Form
You file MC-275 in the court of original jurisdiction — usually the superior court that entered the judgment, or the superior court of the county where you are confined for conditions claims. Filing fees are zero for habeas petitions under Government Code § 70617(d), so do not let any clerk charge you.
By mail. Mail the original plus one copy to the clerk of the court. For Los Angeles, that is Clerk, Los Angeles County Superior Court, 210 W. Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Use trackable mail if possible, and keep the green card. Processing time is typically 60 to 90 days for an initial prima facie ruling under Rule 4.551(a)(3).
Through the prison mailroom. Hand the sealed envelope to floor staff or drop it in the legal-mail box. Ask for a Form 22 receipt or a logbook entry. Under the prison mailbox rule the petition is filed the day you hand it over, even if it sits in the mailroom for two weeks. Keep your copy with the date stamp.
In person. Walk-in filing is available at every superior court clerk’s window during business hours. Bring the original, one copy for the court, and one copy for yourself to be conformed-stamped. The clerk’s stamp is your proof of filing — guard it.
By e-filing in the appellate courts. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court accept MC-275 through TrueFiling. Upload as a single PDF, pay the zero fee, and download the file-stamped copy. The system emails a confirmation receipt that serves as proof of filing.
Fax filing. Most California superior courts no longer accept fax filings under Rule 2.301. Do not assume your local court does — call the clerk first.
For every channel, you must serve the Attorney General and the prosecuting District Attorney. Keep your Proof of Service by Inmate (POS-040) signed and dated for the same day you filed.
What Happens After You File
The clerk dockets the petition and assigns it to a judge — usually the same judge who heard the original case, unless they are unavailable. The judge then performs the prima facie review required by Rule 4.551(c).
If the petition states a prima facie case, the court issues an Order to Show Cause (OSC) directing the respondent to file a Return. The petitioner then has 30 days to file a Traverse — typically using Form MC-275 Reply or a free-form pleading. After briefing, the court may hold an evidentiary hearing.
If the court summarily denies the petition, the order is usually a one-line postcard. You then have a reasonable time — interpreted in practice as roughly 60 days under In re Sanders (1999) 21 Cal.4th 697 — to refile originally in the Court of Appeal.
A grant of relief can take many forms. The court may vacate the judgment, reduce the sentence, order a new trial, or order release. The respondent has 60 days under Rule 8.387 to appeal a grant; do not pack your property until the appeal window closes.
While the petition is pending, your federal AEDPA clock is tolled under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Tolling stops when the California Supreme Court denies review, so calendar that date carefully.
Mistakes to Avoid When Filling Out the Form
- Leaving the verification unsigned. An unverified petition is a legal nullity and the court can deny it without reading a word.
- Writing conclusions instead of facts. The court will reject “my lawyer was incompetent” and demand dated, named, paragraph-numbered specifics.
- Using the wrong case number. Putting your appellate number in Box 4 routes the petition to the wrong court file and triggers a return.
- Naming “The People” as respondent. The respondent on habeas is the warden or sheriff, never “The People.”
- Skipping prior-petition disclosures. Hiding a prior denial triggers the Clark successive-petition bar and destroys your credibility.
- Filing without exhibits. Bare allegations fail the prima facie test, and the court will not subpoena evidence for you.
- Missing the prison-mailbox rule receipt. Without proof of the date you handed the envelope to staff, you lose the early-filing date.
- Ignoring timeliness. Habeas in California must be filed without substantial delay; long gaps trigger the Robbins and Clark bars.
- Bundling grounds. Three claims smashed into one box read as one weak claim; separate them.
- Forgetting the proof of service. No POS-040 means the AG never sees the petition and the court cannot proceed.
- Using outdated form versions. Pre-2019 forms lack the verification block and may be rejected on intake.
- Filing in the wrong county for conditions claims. Conditions petitions belong in the county of confinement, not the county of conviction.
Dos and Don’ts
- Do keep a complete copy of everything you file, including the dated envelope.
- Do verify under penalty of perjury every time you sign because CCP § 2015.5 is unforgiving.
- Do plead facts with names, dates, and paragraph numbers because Duvall requires specificity.
- Do attach declarations under MC-031 for any third-party fact.
- Do track your federal AEDPA clock so a state filing does not eat your federal remedy.
- Do disclose every prior petition because honesty is the cheapest credibility you can buy.
- Don’t use white-out or cross-outs — the clerk’s scanner reads them as defects and may reject the page.
- Don’t staple exhibits to the petition; use binder clips because superior court clerks scan loose pages.
- Don’t rely on jailhouse rumor for legal deadlines — verify with the Prison Law Office or law library staff.
- Don’t file duplicate petitions in two courts at once because that is the textbook Clark abuse-of-the-writ scenario.
- Don’t wait for “more evidence” past In re Robbins outer limits without explaining the delay in the petition itself.
- Don’t sign for another inmate. Power-of-attorney is not a substitute for personal verification on habeas.
Pros and Cons of Filing on Your Own vs. With Help
| Filing Pro Se | Filing With Help |
|---|---|
| Pro: Free — no attorney’s fee | Pro: Counsel knows the Duvall pleading standard cold |
| Pro: Total control over claims and timing | Pro: Investigators can chase down witnesses you cannot reach inside |
| Pro: Liberal construction under Haines v. Kerner | Pro: Counsel can spot federal AEDPA traps in advance |
| Pro: Files immediately, no waiting for appointment | Pro: Hearings are easier to win with cross-examination experience |
| Pro: Builds your own legal record for future filings | Pro: Counsel can negotiate stipulated relief with the AG |
| Con: Easy to miss procedural defaults like Dixon and Waltreus | Con: Private counsel costs $5,000–$50,000 |
| Con: No discovery tools without a lawyer | Con: Appointed counsel only after an OSC issues |
| Con: Hard to gather declarations from inside | Con: You lose some control over claim selection |
| Con: Limited access to legal databases | Con: Lawyer-client conflicts can stall the petition |
| Con: Court is not your advocate, even if it is patient | Con: Finding habeas-experienced counsel is itself a project |
Key Entities, Statutes, and Related Forms
The agency that ultimately responds to MC-275 is the California Office of the Attorney General, which represents the warden in court. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation holds custody and produces the records you will cite. The Board of Parole Hearings is the agency on the other side of parole-related petitions.
The governing statutes are Penal Code §§ 1473–1475 and the procedural rules in California Rules of Court 4.551 and 8.380–8.388. The shaping cases are In re Clark, In re Robbins, In re Dixon, In re Waltreus, and People v. Duvall.
Related forms you may need alongside MC-275 are MC-031 Attached Declaration, MC-200 Application for Waiver of Court Fees, and POS-040 Proof of Service by Inmate. For federal follow-on filings, the corresponding form is the § 2254 petition.
Recap of Key Rulings That Shape MC-275 Drafting
The single most important California case is In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, which sets the successive-petition and abuse-of-the-writ doctrines. Disclose every prior filing, raise every known ground in the first petition, and explain delay in the petition itself.
The timeliness rule from In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770 requires petitions to be filed without substantial delay. Anchor your dates inside the petition and explain any gap of more than a few months.
The pleading standard from People v. Duvall is prima facie facts, not conclusions. Box 6 is where Duvall is won or lost.
Two recent statutory shifts matter. Penal Code § 1473(b)(3) expanded newly discovered evidence claims, and Penal Code § 745 — the California Racial Justice Act — created a brand-new ground that you can plead as Box 5 when racial bias affected your case.
FAQs
Is there a filing fee for MC-275?
No. Habeas petitions are fee-exempt under Government Code § 70617(d), and any clerk who charges a habeas fee is wrong; ask for a supervisor.
Do I need a notary for the verification?
No. California allows declarations under penalty of perjury in place of notarization under CCP § 2015.5, so prison notary services are unnecessary.
Can I file MC-275 while my direct appeal is pending?
Yes. You may file simultaneously, but courts often hold the petition in abeyance until the appeal concludes to avoid duplicative review of the same record.
Should I write my maiden name or married name as petitioner?
Yes — write whichever name appears on your abstract of judgment, then add your other name in parentheses, because the docket matches on the judgment name.
Do I list my appellate case number or my trial case number in Box 4?
Yes — list the trial case number in Box 4, because Box 4 identifies the underlying judgment, and Box 9 captures the appellate number.
Should I name the warden by personal name in the respondent line?
No. Use Warden, [institution] because wardens change and personal-name captions become stale; the institutional title is always current.
Can I attach more than three grounds?
Yes. Use Attachment 5, Attachment 7, or Attachment 8 continuation pages, but raise every known ground in this petition because In re Clark bars later successive grounds.
Is e-filing available for superior-court habeas?
No. Most California superior courts still require paper filing for MC-275, although the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court accept e-filing through TrueFiling.
Do I need to serve the prosecuting District Attorney?
Yes. Under Rule 4.551(b)(2) you must serve both the Attorney General and the convicting county’s DA, and the POS-040 must reflect both.
Can I add new grounds after I file?
Yes, but only by filing an amended petition before the court rules; once an OSC issues or the petition is denied, new grounds usually require a new petition and run into Clark.
Does the prison mailbox rule apply to MC-275?
Yes. In re Jordan adopted the Houston v. Lack mailbox rule for California prisoner filings, treating the petition as filed when given to prison staff.
Can a family member file MC-275 on my behalf?
Yes, as a next friend under Whitmore v. Arkansas, but only if you are physically or mentally unable to file yourself, and the next friend must explain that incapacity in the petition.
What is the deadline for filing MC-275?
No statute sets a hard number, but In re Robbins requires filing without substantial delay; in practice, file within 18 months of discovering the facts or risk the timeliness bar.
Can I challenge prison conditions with MC-275?
Yes. Habeas reaches conditions of confinement under In re Davis (1979) 25 Cal.3d 384, and the petition goes to the superior court of the county where the prison sits.
Related reading
- How to Fill Out U.S. Courts Form 2400B (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form MC-020 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form MC-025 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form MC-031 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form POS-020 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DISC-030 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form CIV-010 (w/Examples) + FAQs