Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_00-cv-03482/USCOURTS-cand-4_00-cv-03482-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY WHITE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

CASTRO, Warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 00-3482 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. It has been stayed twice at

petitioner’s request to allow him to exhaust new issues. On March 3, 2008, the court

reopened the case and granted petitioner’s request to file an amended petition. He has

amended; the amended petition will now be reviewed to determine whether an order to

show cause should issue.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted in Alameda County of attempted murder and was found to

have used a firearm and inflicted great bodily injury. He was sentenced to prison for life

plus ten years plus three years. He appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed his

conviction and the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review. Petitioner also

has filed several state habeas petitions.

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. §

Case 4:00-cv-03482-PJH Document 74 Filed 05/30/08 Page 1 of 4
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

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 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

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) His Fifth, Sixth, and

Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the court would not grant a continuance

to allow his preferred counsel, rather than a substitute, to argue post-trial motions and at

sentencing; (2) the failure to hold a competency hearing violated his due process rights; (3)

trial counsel was ineffective in not pursuing the competency issue and not investigating

possible mental defenses; (4) defense counsel was ineffective in not following up previous

counsel’s motion for appointment of mental health experts to assist in investigating a

possible diminished capacity defense and not inquiring of petitioner about his drug use with

any eye to a diminished capacity defense; (5) counsel who actually appeared at the posttrial motions hearing and sentencing was ineffective; (6) his right to a unanimous jury and

his due process right to a fair jury were violated by the trial court’s dismissing two holdout

jurors; (7) his due process rights were violated by the trial court’s refusal to unseal jury

records to allow the defense to develop a jury misconduct basis for the new trial motion;

and (8) the prosecutor committed misconduct by accusing him on cross-examination of

having information about a murder, when the prosecutor knew that the accusation was

Case 4:00-cv-03482-PJH Document 74 Filed 05/30/08 Page 2 of 4
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

false.

In each of these issues petitioner contends that not only were his federal rights

violated, but also his rights under the California constitution, and in some of them he also

claims that there were violations of California statutes or rules. Federal habeas relief is

available only for violations of federal law binding on the states, so the state-law claims will

be dismissed. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (federal habeas

unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged error in interpretation or application of

state law). 

The portion of issue six in which petitioner contends that his right to a unanimous

jury was violated by the discharge of holdout jurors will be dismissed because there is no

federal right to a unanimous jury. See Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 410-12 (1972)

(rejecting 6th Amendment right to jury trial challenge to 10-2 state jury verdict). The other

half of that claim, that the dismissal violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair jury,

remains in the case. 

The other claims are sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s California law claims, constitutional and statutory, and his jury

unanimity claim, are DISMISSED.

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

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

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

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

the issuance 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. 

Case 4:00-cv-03482-PJH Document 74 Filed 05/30/08 Page 3 of 4
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

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 his receipt of the answer.

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

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to 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 fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

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

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner

must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's

orders in a timely fashion. 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). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 30, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.00\WHITE482.OSC4.wpd 

Case 4:00-cv-03482-PJH Document 74 Filed 05/30/08 Page 4 of 4