Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06911/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06911-2/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 1

Unless otherwise specified, citations to “Exh.” are to the exhibits in the record

attached to respondent’s answer.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TREANDOUS COTTON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT L. WONG, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-6911 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. . 

Petitioner’s motion for a stay of proceedings to allow him to exhaust a new claim in state court

was granted. Petitioner thereafter filed an amended petition, and the stay was lifted. 

Respondent was ordered to show cause why the writ should not be granted based on the one

cognizable claim in the amended petition. Respondent has filed an answer and a memorandum

of points and authorities in support of it. Petitioner has responded with a traverse. For the

reasons set forth below, the petition is DENIED.

STATEMENT

On June 5, 2003, in Monterey County Superior Court, petitioner pled no contest to two

counts of first degree murder and to one count of escape (Exhs. A-C (citing Cal. Pen. Code §§

187, 4532(b)(1)).1 The trial court sentenced petitioner to two concurrent terms of twenty-five

Case 3:06-cv-06911-WHA Document 28 Filed 01/21/10 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

2

years to life and one consecutive term of fours years in state prison (ibid.). Petitioner did not

file a direct appeal of his conviction or sentence. His numerous petitions for a writ of habeas

corpus filed in all three levels of the state court were denied between 2004 and 2007 (Exhs.D -

K). 

A description of the factual background of petitioner’s crimes is not necessary as the

only claim remaining herein concerns petitioner’s attempt to obtain trial court transcripts in

connection with his state habeas petitions. 

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court may not grant a petition challenging a state conviction or sentence on the

basis of a claim that was reviewed on the merits in state court unless the state court's

adjudication of the claim: "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d). The first prong applies both to questions of law and to mixed questions of

law and fact, Williams (Terry) v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407-09 (2000), while the second prong

applies to decisions based on factual determinations, Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340

(2003).

A state court decision is “contrary to” Supreme Court authority, that is, falls under the

first clause of § 2254(d)(1), only if “the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that

reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case

differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” 

Williams (Terry), 529 U.S. at 412-13. A state court decision is an “unreasonable application of”

Supreme Court authority, falls under the second clause of § 2254(d)(1), if it correctly identifies

the governing legal principle from the Supreme Court’s decisions but “unreasonably applies

that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Id. at 413. The federal court on habeas

review may not issue the writ “simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment

Case 3:06-cv-06911-WHA Document 28 Filed 01/21/10 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

3

that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or

incorrectly.” Id. at 411. Rather, the application must0 be “objectively unreasonable” to support

granting the writ. See id. at 409. 

“Factual determinations by state courts are presumed correct absent clear and

convincing evidence to the contrary.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 340. This presumption is not

altered by the fact that the finding was made by a state court of appeals, rather than by a state

trial court. Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 546-47 (1981); Bragg v. Galaza, 242 F.3d 1082,

1087 (9th Cir.), amended, 253 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2001). A petitioner must present clear and

convincing evidence to overcome § 2254(e)(1)'s presumption of correctness; conclusory

assertions will not do. Id.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), a state court decision “based on a factual determination

will not be overturned on factual grounds unless objectively unreasonable in light of the

evidence presented in the state-court proceeding.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 340; see also Torres

v. Prunty, 223 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2000).

When there is no reasoned opinion from the highest state court to consider the

petitioner’s claims, the court looks to the last reasoned opinion, which in this case is that of the

California Court of Appeal. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 801-06 (1991); Shackleford

v. Hubbard, 234 F.3d 1072, 1079, n. 2 (9th Cir.2000). 

B. ISSUE PRESENTED

Petitioner claims that the failure to provide him with transcripts for use in connection

with his state habeas petitions deprived him of his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment. It is a violation of equal protection for a state to deny an indigent

appellant a transcript for use in the appeal of a post-conviction relief decision when such

transcripts could be purchased by those with money to afford them. Long v. Dist. Court of

Iowa, 385 U.S. 192, 194-95 (1966) (per curium).

Here, the Monterey County Superior Court denied petitioner’s motion for his trial court

transcripts because he failed to make a “particularized showing that he requires the transcript in

order to make an effective collateral attack on his conviction” (Amend. Pet. Exh. E at 1). 

Case 3:06-cv-06911-WHA Document 28 Filed 01/21/10 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 2

As the petition fails on its merits, respondent’s alternative argument that the petition

is untimely need not be addressed. 

4

Denying an indigent petitioner a transcript for purposes of a habeas petition because the

petitioner failed to show “a specific need” for the transcript “does not run counter to clearly

established federal law.” Boyd v. Newland, 467 F.3d 1139, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing

United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S.317, 328 (1976)). In Boyd, the Ninth Circuit upheld a

California appellate court rule requiring an indigent petitioner’s motion for transcripts to

“identify the specific transcript requested” and “establish with some certainty how the requested

materials may be useful on appeal.” Id. at 1150-51 & n. 6 (upholding Cal. Ct. App. First App.

Dist. Local Rule 6(d)). Here, the state court denied petitioner’s request for transcripts because

petitioner did not identify the particular transcripts he needed or explain how such transcripts

would help him advance his habeas claims (Amend Pet. Exh. E at 1). Under Boyd, the state

court’s ruling did not run counter to clearly established federal law.

In his claim, petitioner also alleges that his attorneys failed to provide him “full complete

work product” for purposes of petitioner’s post-conviction challenges. Any actions by

petitioner’s counsel are not the fault of the state courts and therefore cannot have caused an

equal protection violation. Petitioner does not allege a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to

the effective assistance of counsel, but even if he did, there is no basis for finding counsels’

performance either unreasonable or prejudicial because petitioner does not identify the missing

“work product,” let alone explain how it would have made a difference in the outcome of this

state habeas petitions. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686-94 (1984) (to prevail on

ineffectiveness of counsel claim, petitioner must establish reasonable likelihood that but for

counsel's unreasonable errors, result of the proceeding would have been different).

Consequently, petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief.2

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases now requires a district court to

rule on whether a petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the same order in which

Case 3:06-cv-06911-WHA Document 28 Filed 01/21/10 Page 4 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

5

the petition is denied. Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that his claims

amounted to a denial of his constitutional rights or demonstrate that a reasonable jurist would

find this court's denial of his claim debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000). Consequently, no certificate of appealability is warranted in this case. 

The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.06\COTTON911.RUL.wpd 

Case 3:06-cv-06911-WHA Document 28 Filed 01/21/10 Page 5 of 5