Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03795/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03795-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL LAWRENCE,

Petitioner,

 v.

JOHN HAVILAND, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C-09-3795 TEH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay

State Prison in Crescent City, California, has filed a pro se

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging a judgment of conviction from Alameda County Superior

Court. Doc. #1. Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. 

I 

According to the Petition, on October 14, 2005, Petitioner

was sentenced to nineteen years and eight months in state prison

following his no-contest plea in Alameda County Superior Court to

various crimes including assault with a deadly weapon and shooting

Case 3:09-cv-03795-TEH Document 7 Filed 01/28/10 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

at an inhabited dwelling. Petitioner filed habeas petitions in the

state superior and appellate courts challenging the judgment, all of

which were denied. On July 22, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant

federal Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Doc. #1. 

II

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). It 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.” Id. § 2243. 

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by alleging 

that his sentence is unconstitutional because the facts supporting

his upper term sentence on the assault with a deadly weapon charge

were not presented to a jury to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

in violation of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007). 

Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claim appears cognizable under §

2254 and merits an Answer from Respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247

F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se

petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally); see also Butler v.

Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 639 (9th Cir. 2008) (Cunningham may be applied

retroactively on collateral review); In re Gomez, 45 Cal. 4th 650,

660 (Cal. 2009) (Cunningham applies to any California case in which

the judgment was not final at the time the decision in Blakely v.

Case 3:09-cv-03795-TEH Document 7 Filed 01/28/10 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

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), was issued). 

III

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of

this Order and the Petition, and all attachments thereto, on

Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this

Order on Petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Petitioner, within sixty (60) 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. 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 (30) days of his receipt of the Answer.

3. In lieu of an Answer, Respondent may file 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 thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a Reply

Case 3:09-cv-03795-TEH Document 7 Filed 01/28/10 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

within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any Opposition.

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 also must keep the

Court and all parties informed of any change of address. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 01/27/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.09\Lawrence-09-3795-osc.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-03795-TEH Document 7 Filed 01/28/10 Page 4 of 4