Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04828/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04828-0/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)

---

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 to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.09\Schneider04828_osc.wpd

1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PENISIMANI T. SCHNEIDER, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

COLLEEN NOLL, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-04828 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California inmate currently incarcerated at the La Palma Correctional

Center in Eloy, Arizona, proceeding pro se, seeks a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction out of Contra Costa County. 

Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The Court orders Respondent to show cause why the

petition should not be granted. 

STATEMENT

In 2007, Petitioner pleaded no contest to several counts, including but not limited

to three felonies, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, assault by means of

force likely to produce great bodily injury and child endangerment in Contra Costa

Case 5:09-cv-04828-JF Document 3 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 5
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 California Penal Code section 1016 provides: “... [A] plea of nolo contendere

shall be considered the same as a plea of guilty and [] upon a plea of nolo contendere, the

court shall find the defendant guilty. The legal effect of such a plea, to a crime

punishable as a felony, shall be the same as that of a plea of guilty for all purposes. “

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.09\Schneider04828_osc.wpd

2

County Superior Court. (Pet. Ex. F at 1-2.) On April 10, 2008, Petitioner was sentenced

to five years in state prison. (Pet. at 2.) Petitioner filed a direct appeal to the California

Court of Appeal, which resulted in a corrected restitution. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner filed state

habeas petitions, with the state high court denying review on July 8, 2009. Petitioner

filed the instant federal petition on October 9, 2009. 

DISCUSSION

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). 

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 appears from the application that

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner claims the following: 1) judicial

bias by the trial judge in refusing Petitioner’s motion for new counsel; 2) ineffective

assistance of counsel for his failure to conduct reasonable pretrial investigation; 3)

ineffective assistance of counsel in advising Petitioner to accept the plea agreement; and

4) cumulative error. 

Claims 1 and 2 are not cognizable because a defendant who pleads guilty, or no

contest, cannot later raise in habeas corpus proceedings independent claims relating to the

deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred before the plea of guilty.1

 See Haring v.

Case 5:09-cv-04828-JF Document 3 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 5
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

 The decision whether or not to accept a plea offer is a critical stage of the

prosecution at which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches. Iowa v. Tovar, 541

U.S. 77, 80-81 (2004); Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 879 (9th Cir. 2002).

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.09\Schneider04828_osc.wpd

3

Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 319-20 (1983) (guilty plea forecloses consideration of pre-plea

constitutional deprivations); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266-67 (1973) (same);

Moran v. Godinez, 57 F.3d 690, 700 (9th Cir. 1994) (refusing to consider contention that

petitioner’s attorneys were ineffective because they failed to attempt to prevent the use of

his confession as pre-plea constitutional violation). 

The only challenges left open in federal habeas corpus after a guilty plea or a plea

of nolo contendere is the voluntary and intelligent character of the plea and the nature of

the advice of counsel to plead. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-57 (1985); Tollett, 411

U.S. at 267. A defendant who enters a guilty plea or a no contest plea on the advice of

counsel may generally only attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the plea by

showing that the advice he received from counsel was not within the range of competence

demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.2

 See Hill, 474 U.S. at 56; Tollett, 411 U.S. at

267; United States v. Signori, 844 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988). Liberally construed,

claim 3 is cognizable under § 2254. The Court orders Respondent to show cause why the

petition should not be granted on the basis of claims 3 and 4. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition 

and all attachments thereto upon 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 sixty

(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. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a

Case 5:09-cv-04828-JF Document 3 Filed 02/22/10 Page 3 of 5
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 to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.09\Schneider04828_osc.wpd

4

copy of all portions of the state parole 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 (30) days of that the answer is

filed.

3. Alternatively, Respondent may, within sixty (60) days of the date this order

is filed, file 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 (30) days of the

date the motion is filed, and Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner a

reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any opposition is filed.

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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 and all

parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of

Change of Address.” He 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _____________________ JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

2/12/10

Case 5:09-cv-04828-JF Document 3 Filed 02/22/10 Page 4 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PENISIMANI T. SCHNEIDER,

Petitioner,

 v.

COLLEEN NOLL, Warden,

Respondent. /

Case Number: CV09-04828 JF 

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.

Penisimani T. Schneider G-14860

La Palma Correctional Center

Hopi Bravo 114

5501 N. La Palma Road

Eloy, AZ 85131

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

2/22/10

2/22/10

Case 5:09-cv-04828-JF Document 3 Filed 02/22/10 Page 5 of 5