Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02366/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02366-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MUHAMMED ALI,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. STOLC, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-2366 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 3 & 5)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner currently incarcerated in Arizona, has filed a pro se petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging a conviction obtained in a

California state court. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

STATEMENT

In 2008, a jury in Alameda County Superior Court convicted petitioner of two counts of

corporal injury of a spouse, one count of false imprisonment, and one count of making a

terrorist threat. The trial court sentenced him to a term of thirteen years and four months in

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

Supreme Court denied review. 

Case 5:10-cv-02366-LHK Document 6 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 3
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

ANALYSIS

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. 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 Section 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). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that (1) there was insufficient

evidence to support his conviction for false imprisonment, in violation of his right to due

process; (2) the instructions on reasonable doubt were erroneous, violating his right to due

process; and (3) petitioner’s right to due process was violated by a number of errors in his

sentence. 

Liberally construed, these issues are sufficient to require a response.

CONCLUSION 

1. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the

respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The

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

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety 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 based on

Case 5:10-cv-02366-LHK Document 6 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 3
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

the cognizable claims in the petition, as identified 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 thirty days of the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within ninety days, 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 the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a

reply within fifteen days of the date any opposition is filed.

4. 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). 

5. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 3 & 5) is

GRANTED in light of his lack of funds. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.10\ALI2366.OSC.wpd

Case 5:10-cv-02366-LHK Document 6 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 3