Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07687/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07687-0/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

KAI CHANG,

Petitioner, 

 v.

SHARON SMITH NEVINS,

Executive Director,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-7687 WHA (PR) 

GRANT OF LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS; ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE

This is a habeas petition filed pro se by a person who is held at the Metropolitan State

Hospital in Norwalk, California, following a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. 

Venue is proper because the order giving rise to petitioner’s confinement was entered by

the Superior Court of California in and for Santa Clara County, which is in this district. See 28

U.S.C. § 2241(d).

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

Case 3:06-cv-07687-WHA Document 8 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

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

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 was charged with premeditated attempted murder. People v. Chang, 2005

WL 2271917 at *1 (Cal.App. 2005). He waived his right to jury trial. Id. The court found him

guilty of attempted murder, but that the offense was not premeditated. Id. It then further found

that he was insane at the time of the offense and pronounced him not guilty by reason of

insanity. Id. He was committed to the Department of Mental Health pursuant to Section 1026

of the California Penal Code for a period not to exceed nine years. Id. 

Petitioner’s issues are, perhaps understandably, rather hard to make out. In his first

issue he claims to be not guilty and refers the reader to an attachment headed “My Great

Grievance.” In Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993), however, the Supreme Court made

it clear that there can be no habeas relief based solely on a petitioner's actual innocence of the

crime. Coley v. Gonzalez, 55 F.3d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1995). In addition to the claim of

innocence, the “Great Grievance” contains a large number of factual allegations, but none 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)). The first issue will be dismissed.

Petitioner’s other issues are that trial counsel was ineffective and that he did not waive

his right to a jury trial, so his trial to the court violated his Sixth Amendment rights. These

claims are sufficient to require a response. 

///

Case 3:06-cv-07687-WHA Document 8 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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

CONCLUSION 

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (document number 2 on the docket) is GRANTED.

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. 

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: August 12 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.06\CHANG687.OSC.wpd 

Case 3:06-cv-07687-WHA Document 8 Filed 08/14/07 Page 3 of 3