Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03315/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03315-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES KY ANDERSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-3315 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 3)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has applied for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis.

BACKGROUND

In 2003, petitioner pled guilty in Mendocino County Superior Court to charges of

assault with a deadly weapon causing great bodily injury. He was sentenced to seven years in

state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the Supreme Court of California

denied review. His habeas petitions to the California Superior Court and California Supreme

Court were denied. 

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);

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall "award the writ or issue an

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

Case 3:05-cv-03315-MMC Document 4 Filed 10/19/05 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

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) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-

76 (1977)). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel

did not present “mitigating circumstances”; (2) he was not properly advised that he would be

giving up a trial by jury, or of the other consequences of his guilty plea; (3) there have been

intervening changes in the federal sentencing guidelines; (4) because of his “amphetamine

psychosis,” he was not able to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights in

connection with his plea; and (5) the prosecutor and judge committed misconduct by denying

him his equal protection right to the same lawyers that a wealthy defendant would have had. 

Petitioner’s third claim is not cognizable as he is a state prisoner who was not

sentenced under the federal guidelines. Additionally, as to federal habeas relief, the only

challenges available after a guilty plea are to the voluntary and intelligent character of the plea

and the nature of the advice of counsel to enter the plea. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-57

(1985). A defendant who pleads guilty cannot later raise in habeas corpus proceedings

independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred before the

plea of guilty. See Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 319-20 (1983) (holding guilty plea

forecloses consideration of pre-plea constitutional deprivations). Consequently, plaintiff’s

fifth claim is not cognizable. Plaintiff’s first, second and fourth claims, liberally construed,

address either the voluntary and intelligent nature of his guilty plea, or the nature of his

counsel’s advice to plead guilty. Accordingly, such claims are cognizable. The third and fifth

claims, for the reasons expressed, will be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. Petitioner’s third and fifth claims are DISMISSED for failure to state a

Case 3:05-cv-03315-MMC Document 4 Filed 10/19/05 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

cognizable claim for relief.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

petition, along with all attachments thereto, upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the

Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on

petitioner.

 3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of

the date this order is filed, 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 based on petitioner’s three cognizable claims, described above. 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 30 days of his receipt of the answer.

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within 60 days of the date this order is

filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 30 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 true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. 

6. It is petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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).

7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will

be granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline which they seek to extend.

Case 3:05-cv-03315-MMC Document 4 Filed 10/19/05 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

8. In light of his lack of funds, petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket No. 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2005

 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03315-MMC Document 4 Filed 10/19/05 Page 4 of 4