Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07670/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07670-0/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)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTICE LOHNER,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-7670 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Martice Lohner, an inmate at the California Correctional Center in Susanville, filed this

pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now

before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. His in forma pauperis application also is before the court.

BACKGROUND

Lohner states in his petition that he was convicted in Sonoma County Superior Court of

multiple counts of robbery and burglary. He alleges that he was sentenced on October 17, 2002

to a term of 9 years in prison. He apparently appealed unsuccessfully and filed state habeas

petitions before filing this action.

Case 3:06-cv-07670-SI Document 11 Filed 06/28/07 Page 1 of 4
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

DISCUSSION

A. Review Of Petition

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). A

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall "award the writ or issue

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28

U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The petition asserts five claims. First, Lohner alleges that he was denied his right to an

impartial jury because two jurors badgered at least one other juror to convict; "[t]heir conduct

displays bias, prejudicial and 'hostile' tactics." Petition attachment, p. 2 (errors in source).

Liberally construed, the allegations state a cognizable Sixth Amendment claim.

Second, Lohner alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions for

(a) robbery of victim Soto, id. at 5, (b) attempted theft from victim Espinoza, id. at 6, (c) robbery

of victim Jessica Guidi, id. at 7, (d) robbery of victim Anthony, id. at 9, (e) robbery of Austin

Meyers, id. at 11, and (f) all convictions connected to the Guidi residence, id. at 12. Liberally

construed, these insufficiency of the evidence allegations state a cognizable due process claim.

See In re. Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). 

Third, Lohner alleges that the trial court erred by declining to give jury instructions

requested by the defense. Liberally construed, the allegations present a cognizable due process

claim for jury instruction error.

Fourth, Lohner alleges that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during opening

statement and closing argument. Liberally construed, the allegations state a claim for a due

process violation based on prosecutorial misconduct. 

Case 3:06-cv-07670-SI Document 11 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Fifth, Lohner alleges that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Liberally

construed, the allegations present a cognizable claim for a Sixth Amendment violation. 

The court has identified the federal constitutional claim suggested by the allegations in

the petition, although Lohner often does not specify the federal constitutional basis for his

claims. For example, he states that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, but does not

identify the Sixth Amendment as the federal constitutional basis for his claim. The court has

identified the federal constitutional basis for ease of reference , but does not preclude respondent

from arguing that state court remedies have not been exhausted if such a problem exists. 

B. A Proper Respondent Must Be Named

The respondent in a habeas action is "the state officer having custody of the applicant"

if the applicant is in custody. Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. "The proper

person to be served in the usual case is either the warden of the institution in which the petitioner

is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions." Rule 2, advisory

committee's notes. Cf. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004). Failure to name a petitioner's

custodian as a respondent deprives the federal court of personal jurisdiction. See Stanley v.

California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Lohner identifies the respondent as "People of The State Of California" as the respondent,

notwithstanding the directions on page 2 of the form petition that the State should not be named

as respondent and the warden usually is the correct respondent. Lohner must amend to substitute

in the warden of his prison as the proper respondent.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states cognizable claims for habeas relief and warrants a response. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State

Case 3:06-cv-07670-SI Document 11 Filed 06/28/07 Page 3 of 4
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

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

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before September 7, 2007,

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 issued. Respondent must file with the

answer a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and

that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the Court and serving it on respondent on or before October 12, 2007.

5. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED as unnecessary because he

paid the filing fee. (Docket # 2.) 

6. Petitioner must file an amendment to his petition for writ of habeas corpus to name

the proper respondent. The document should have the case name and complete case number

used on this order, should be labeled "Amendment To Petition," and need merely state

"Petitioner files this amendment to his petition for writ of habeas corpus to substitute [insert

name here] as the respondent in this action." In the place indicated, petitioner should provide

the name of the warden of his prison. Petitioner must sign and file his amendment no later than

July 27, 2007. Failure to file the amendment by the deadline will result in the dismissal of this

action for lack of jurisdiction.

7. Lohner has sent several documents to the court that do not have the case name and

number on them. Lohner must write the case name and case number on the first page of every

document he sends to the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 28, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07670-SI Document 11 Filed 06/28/07 Page 4 of 4