Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06911/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06911-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TREANDAS COTTON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT L. WONG, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-6911 WHA (PR) 

ORDER LIFTING STAY;

PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner’s motion for a stay of

proceedings to allow him to exhaust a new claim in state court was granted. Petitioner has now

exhausted and filed an amended petition containing the new claim. The stay will be lifted and

the amended petition will now be reviewed to determine if an order to show cause should issue.

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall

Case 3:06-cv-06911-WHA Document 14 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not

sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of

constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally

insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court

(Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to charges of murder and attempted escape in

Monterey County Superior Court. He did not appeal, but contends that he has exhausted the

claims he raises here by way of state habeas petitions.

Petitioner claims that: (1) his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when police

arrested him without a warrant, and that the arresting officer’s reliance on knowledge of

petitioner’s prior offense as part of the facts giving probable cause constituted outrageous

government misconduct in violation of due process; (2) the denial of his state habeas petition by

the Monterey County Superior Court was contrary to, and an unreasonable application of,

clearly established United States Supreme Court authority; (3) the denial of his state habeas

petition by the California Court of Appeal was contrary to, and an unreasonable application of,

clearly established Supreme Court authority; (4) his equal protection rights were violated by the

state’s refusal to provide free transcripts for use in his habeas cases, when such transcripts

would be available to litigants who were able to pay for them; (5) the denial of his state habeas

petition by the Supreme Court of California was contrary to, and an unreasonable application

of, clearly established Supreme Court authority; and (6) his rights were violated by inclusion in

the plea agreement of a waiver of the right to file habeas petitions. 

1. ISSUES TWO, THREE, AND FIVE

In these issues petitioner contends that the denials of his state habeas petitions by the 

superior court, court of appeal, and supreme court were contrary to the standard set out in 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d). That section provides that a federal district court may not grant a habeas

Case 3:06-cv-06911-WHA Document 14 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

petition challenging a state conviction or sentence on the basis of a claim that was reviewed on

the merits in state court unless the state court's adjudication of the claim: "(1) resulted in a

decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a

decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This is not a ground for federal

habeas relief, but rather is a restriction on granting such relief These claims will be summarily

denied.

2. ISSUE ONE

This appears to be petitioner’s main issue. He contends that he was arrested without

probable cause, a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and that the arresting officer’s

reliance on the officer’s knowledge of petitioner’s previous offense as part of the alleged

probable cause was “outrageous government misconduct.” 

First, these claims were waived by petitioner’s nolo contendere plea. See Haring v.

Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 319-20 (1983) (guilty plea forecloses consideration of pre-plea

constitutional deprivations). Secondly, Fourth Amendment claims cannot be the basis for

federal habeas relief when there is adequate opportunity to litigate such claims in state court, as

there clearly is in California. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82, 494 (1976). Thirdly,

the circumstances in which outrageous government conduct can amount to a due process

violation are very limited. "‘The defense of outrageous government conduct is limited to

extreme cases in which the government's conduct violates fundamental fairness and is shocking

to the universal sense of justice mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.’ 

United States v. Gurolla, 333 F.3d 944, 950 (9th Cir.2003) (citations and internal quotation

marks omitted). We have found outrageous government conduct in instances where the

government has ‘engineer[ed] and direct[ed] the criminal enterprise from start to finish,’ United

States v. Smith, 924 F.2d 889, 897 (9th Cir.1991), and in ‘that slim category of cases in which

the police have been brutal, employing physical or psychological coercion against the

defendant.’ United States v. Bogart, 783 F.2d 1428, 1435 (9th Cir.1986) (citation omitted),

Case 3:06-cv-06911-WHA Document 14 Filed 11/15/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

vacated in part on other grounds sub nom. United States v. Wingender, 790 F.2d 802 (9th

Cir.1986).” United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1238 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, the

arresting officer’s reliance in part upon his knowledge of petitioner’s prior offense to constitute

probable cause was not outrageous at all, much less sufficiently outrageous to rise to the level

of a due process violation. This claim will be summarily denied.

3. ISSUE FOUR

In issue four petitioner contends that his equal protection rights were violated by the

state’s refusal to provide free transcripts for use in his habeas cases, when such transcripts

would be available to litigants who were able to pay for them. This claim is sufficient to

require a response. See Long v. Dist. Court of Iowa, 385 U.S. 192, 194-95 (1966) (violation of

equal protection for state to deny indigent appellant transcript for use in appeal of postconviction relief decision when such transcripts could be purchased by those with money to

afford them) (per curium).

4. ISSUE SIX

In issue six petitioner contends that his rights were violated by inclusion in the plea

agreement of a waiver of the right to file habeas petitions. The presence of this clause in the

plea agreement did not in itself violate any constitutional right; after all, waivers of the right of

direct appeal are permissible, see United States v. Baramdyka, 95 F.3d 840, 843 (9th Cir. 1996),

and there is no obvious reason why waiver of collateral relief should be treated any differently,

see DeRoo v. United States, 223 F.3d 919, 923 (8th Cir. 2000). It is true that certain rights are

not waivable, such as the right to challenge a plea as not having been voluntary or to raise

ineffective assistance of counsel in advising the defendant to plead guilty, see id. at 923-24, but

that is a matter in abatement, that is, it would be raised by petitioner if waiver were asserted by

the State in a collateral relief proceeding. It is not grounds for habeas relief in itself. This claim

will be dismissed.

CONCLUSION 

1. The stay is LIFTED. The clerk shall REOPEN the case.

2. Petitioner’s issues one, two, three, five and six are summarily DISMISSED as not

Case 3:06-cv-06911-WHA Document 14 Filed 11/15/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

stating facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Aubut, 431 F.2d at 689.

2. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the

respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The

clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of

service of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted as to

issue four. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions

of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a

determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the

court and serving it on respondent within thirty days of service of the answer.

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer,

as set forth in Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a

motion, petitioner shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement

of non-opposition within thirty days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the

court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of receipt of any opposition.

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

respondent by mailing a copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Papers intended to be

filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk rather than to the undersigned. Petitioner also

must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk

headed “Notice of Change of Address,” and comply with any orders of the court within the time

allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.06\COTTON911.OSC.wpd 

Case 3:06-cv-06911-WHA Document 14 Filed 11/15/07 Page 5 of 5