Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01146/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01146-0/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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend; Granting Leave to Proceed IFP

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.10\Walker01146_dwlta&ifp.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY E. WALKER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-01146 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND; GRANTING

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 2 & 4)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California’s Men’s Colony in

San Luis Obispo, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. Petitioner has filed a motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No. 4.)

BACKGROUND

According to the petition and the exhibits thereto, petitioner was found guilty

in Santa Clara County Superior Court in 1991 of unlawful sexual intercourse with a

minor and forcible rape. (Pet., Ex. E at 1.) Petitioner appealed the sentence, and the

state appellate court affirmed the judgment on April 30, 1993. (Id., Ex. I.) 

Petitioner did not seek review in the state high court. (Pet. at 3.) Petitioner filed two

Case 5:10-cv-01146-EJD Document 6 Filed 06/10/10 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend; Granting Leave to Proceed IFP

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.10\Walker01146_dwlta&ifp.wpd 2

habeas petitions in state superior court, which were denied on July 22, 2009, and

September 17, 2009. (Id., Exs. 2-1 & 2-4.) The California Court of Appeal denied

the petition on October 22, 2009. (Id., Ex. 2.) The state high court denied review

on January 13, 2010. (Pet. at 5.)

Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on March 17, 2010.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a 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). 

It 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.” Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

It appears from the petition and exhibits thereto that Petitioner is attempting

to challenge the constitutionality of his 1991 conviction. Furthermore, by

challenging the constitutionality of the 1991 prior conviction, petitioner seeks to

invalidate a more recent 2005 conviction which included an enhancement based on

the 1991 prior conviction. Petitioner states the following grounds for federal habeas

relief: 1) the trial court failed to advise him that a direct consequence of his 1991

conviction would include life time registration as a sex offender; 2) “Petitioner

request[s] the withdraw[al] of plea as he would have never ever accepted any such

plea if told he would have to register... as a sex offender... for life”; 3) breach of

contract as the plea does not state the life time registration requirement; 4)

ineffective assistance by trial and appellate counsels; 5) violation of equal protection

as “the law requires petitioner be treated equaly [sic] as any other person in U.S.

Case 5:10-cv-01146-EJD Document 6 Filed 06/10/10 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend; Granting Leave to Proceed IFP

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.10\Walker01146_dwlta&ifp.wpd 3

whos[e] contract was illegal”; and 6) the prior conviction used to enhance his 2005

conviction should be stricken because the 1991 prior conviction was unlawful. (Pet.

6-8.)

A petitioner generally may not attack the constitutionality of a prior

conviction used to enhance a later sentence. “[O]nce a state conviction is no longer

open to direct or collateral attack in its own right because the defendant failed to

pursue those remedies while they were available (or because the defendant did so

unsuccessfully), the conviction may be regarded as conclusively valid. If that

conviction is later used to enhance a criminal sentence, the defendant generally may

not challenge the enhanced sentence through a petition under § 2254 on the ground

that the prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained.” Lackawanna County

Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 403-04 (2001) (citation omitted); see also

United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 295 F.3d 1041, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2002) (bar

against collateral attacks on prior convictions also applies where sentencing court

declined to reduce sentence based on circumstances of prior conviction). 

Accordingly, all the claims stated above are DISMISSED with prejudice. 

In the interest of justice, petitioner shall be given an opportunity to file an

amended petition to attempt to state cognizable claims challenging the lawfulness of

the state conviction for which he is currently incarcerated. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Petitioner must, 

within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, file an amended petition

challenging the lawfulness of the state conviction for which he is currently

incarcerated which he has presented to the state high court for a fair opportunity to

rule on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-

16 (1982). The amended petition must include the caption and civil case number

Case 5:10-cv-01146-EJD Document 6 Filed 06/10/10 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend; Granting Leave to Proceed IFP

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.10\Walker01146_dwlta&ifp.wpd 4

used in this order, No. C 10-01146 JW (PR), and must include the words

AMENDED PETITION on the first page. 

Failure to file a timely response in accordance with this order will result

in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to

petitioner.

2. All claims challenging the constitutionality of petitioner’s 1991 prior

conviction are DISMISSED with prejudice. 

3. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 

4) is GRANTED. Docket No. 2 is DENIED as moot. 

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s form petition with a copy of

this order to petitioner. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2 and 4.

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

June 4, 2010 

Case 5:10-cv-01146-EJD Document 6 Filed 06/10/10 Page 4 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY E WALKER,

Petitioner,

 v.

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden,

Respondent. /

Case Number: CV10-01146 JW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Jeffrey E. Walker F-11343

California Men’s Colony State Prison

Cell # 6157

P.O. Box 8101

San Luis Obispo, CA 93409-8101

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

6/10/2010 6/10/2010 /s/

Case 5:10-cv-01146-EJD Document 6 Filed 06/10/10 Page 5 of 5