Is it detrimental to petitioners to peremptory challenge to the judge assigned to assess a petition for writ of habeas corpus?

The Attorney General contends finally that allowing a peremptory challenge to the judge assigned to assess a petition for writ of habeas corpus is detrimental to petitioners because it would require them to raise such a challenge at that point in the habeas corpus proceedings or otherwise forfeit their right to do so. The Attorney General's assertion is contrary to the decisions (previously cited by the Attorney General) that hold a party is not foreclosed from moving under section 170.6 to disqualify a judge who had presided at an earlier hearing in the same action when that hearing did not involve[e] a determination of contested fact issues relating to the merits. ( 170.6, subd. (a)(2).) As previously explained, the judge deciding whether any of the petitioner's habeas corpus claims states a prima facie case for relief accepts the petitioner's factual allegations as true. (People v. Duvall, supra , 9 Cal.4th at pp. 474475, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 259, 886 P.2d 1252.) Because the judge's evaluation of a habeas corpus petition does not require the determination of contested fact issues, a petitioner who did not peremptorily challenge that judge is not foreclosed from invoking section 170.6 to disqualify the judge assigned to the habeas corpus proceeding after an order to show cause has issued, provided all of the requirements for doing so have been satisfied.