Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01350/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01350-1/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

ISAIAH THOMPSON-BONILLA,

Petitioner,

v.

W. A. DUNCAN, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-1350 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

INTRODUCTION

Isaiah Thompson-Bonilla, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this pro se action

seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He requested a stay and abeyance

to exhaust his state court remedies. He now has moved to lift the stay and file an amended

petition. His amended 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. 

BACKGROUND

Thompson-Bonilla reports in his amended petition that he was convicted following a

bench trial in Alameda County Superior Court of three counts of robbery with use of a firearm

and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. He also was found to have suffered prior

convictions. On May 17, 2002, he was sentenced to 45 years to life in prison. He appealed. The

California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and the California Supreme Court denied the

Case 3:05-cv-01350-SI Document 10 Filed 06/27/06 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

petition for review. Thompson-Bonilla also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state

court before filing this action.

DISCUSSION

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 first claim in the amended petition is that Thompson-Bonilla's right to equal

protection of the law was violated because African-Americans (a class of which he apparently

is a member) have been intentionally and purposefully singled out for the harsher sentencing

under California's Three Strikes law. Liberally construed, the claim is not patently frivolous and

warrants a response. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996).

 The second claim in the amended petition is that the state breached a plea agreement

from a 1990 or 1992 conviction by using that conviction to increase his sentence under

California's Three Strikes law, in violation of Thompson-Bonilla's rights under the Due Process

Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Double Jeopardy Clause, and the Contract Clause of

the U.S. Constitution. The equal protection and double jeopardy contentions are meritless as to

a recidivist statute such as California's Three Strikes law. See Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554,

560 (1967); Jackson v. Nelson, 435 F.2d 553, 553 (9th Cir. 1971); see also United States v.

Kaluna, 192 F.3d 1188, 1193, 1197-1200 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (finding that federal “threestrikes statute's recidivist sentencing scheme” does not on its face violate Double Jeopardy

Clause, separation of powers doctrine, Ex Post Facto Clause, or Eighth Amendment

Case 3:05-cv-01350-SI Document 10 Filed 06/27/06 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

proportionality guarantee). The challenge based on the Contract Clause of the federal

constitution also must be dismissed because there is no Supreme Court authority for the

proposition that the Contract Clause protects the right of an accused from having a conviction

used to enhance a sentence on a subsequent conviction. See Williams (Terry) v. Taylor, 529

U.S. 362, 412 (2000) (restricting source of federal habeas relief, under § 2254(d)(1), to decisions

of the United States Supreme Court). Liberally construed, Thompson-Bonilla's claim that his

right to due process was violated because the 1990 or 1992 plea agreement was breached by the

later use of that conviction for sentence enhancement purposes is not patently frivolous and

warrants a response. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) Buckley v. Terhune, 441

F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc); Brown v. Poole, 337 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2003).

Thompson-Bonilla also alleges that California's Three Strikes law violates provisions of

the California Constitution. Those claims are dismissed without leave to amend because federal

habeas relief is available only for violations of the "Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States" and is not available for state law violations. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see Middleton v. Cupp,

768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (state law violations not cognizable on habeas).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The amended petition states two cognizable claims for habeas relief -- an equal

protection claim based on selective prosecution under the Three Strikes Law and a due process

claim based on a breach of the plea -- and warrants a response. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and all other documents

in the file upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State 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 8, 2006,

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

Case 3:05-cv-01350-SI Document 10 Filed 06/27/06 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

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 13, 2006.

5. Petitioner's motion for leave to file the amended petition received on May 4, 2006

is GRANTED. (Docket #9.) The stay of proceedings that was imposed while petitioner

exhausted his state court remedies is now lifted and the clerk shall reopen this action. By

permitting the filing of an amended petition and lifting the stay, the court does not intend to

foreclose respondent from asserting any procedural defenses (e.g., unexhausted claims or

untimeliness) if such defenses are warranted under the facts of this case. The court notes that

respondent has not yet been served with any documents in this action and therefore has not yet

had an opportunity to raise procedural defenses to petitioner's claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 26, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01350-SI Document 10 Filed 06/27/06 Page 4 of 4