Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03933/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03933-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

GREGORY MARK McCARTHY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

IVAN D. CLAY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-3933 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Sierra Conservation 

Camp in Jamestown, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. 

Venue is proper because the conviction was obtained in Santa Clara County, which

is in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

A jury convicted petitioner of one count of arson of an inhabited structure. See Cal.

Penal Code § 451(b). The jury found true allegations that he had used devices designed to

accelerate the fire and to delay ignition, see Cal. Penal Code § 451.1(a)(5), and that he had

intentionally caused damage exceeding $1 million, see Cal. Penal Code § 12022.6(a)(3). 

The conviction on the first count arose out of a fire that destroyed the home of petitioner’s

ex-wife's divorce lawyer. Petitioner was also convicted of one count of presenting a false

and fraudulent insurance claim, see Cal. Penal Code § 550(a), regarding an unrelated fire

at a karate studio that he owned. He was sentenced to seventeen years in prison, and was

also ordered to pay restitution in excess of $2.3 million to the victims of the house fire and

their insurers. People v. McCarthy, 2002 WL 1767612, *1 (Cal.App. 2002). Petitioner

Case 4:07-cv-03933-PJH Document 3 Filed 08/27/07 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

unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme

Court of California denied review. His state habeas petitions were denied.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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. 

 Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland

v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). A petition must “specify all the grounds for relief” and

set forth “facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c), Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the Federal District Courts, 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.’” Id., Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v.

Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to

be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist.

Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) His Sixth

Amendment right to trial by jury was violated by the sentencing court’s selection of the

upper term for his sentence based on facts not tried to the jury and found by it beyond a

reasonable doubt; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in not raising the first issue as to the

sentences imposed; (3) his appellate counsel was ineffective because he “failed to rase on

appeal a meritorious[] “Dead Bang” issue; (4) petitioner’s claim as presented in issue one is

based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), which was decided before his

conviction was final, so no retroactive application was necessary and the superior court

Case 4:07-cv-03933-PJH Document 3 Filed 08/27/07 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

erred in denying his habeas petition on grounds that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296

(2004), is not retroactive; and (5) even if his claim as set out in issue one requires

retroactive application, it comes within an exception to Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288

(1989), for watershed new rules, so the superior court erred in denying his state habeas

petition. 

In claim three petitioner has failed to “state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of

constitutional error,’” see Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431

F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970), because he provides no explanation of what the phrase

“dead bang” might mean, and no further explanation of what he contends appellate counsel

should have raised beyond that conclusory statement. The claim will be dismissed. 

Issues four and five will be dismissed because they are really arguments as to why

the alleged constitutional violation by the sentencing court can be grounds for habeas relief,

not independent grounds in themselves. The arguments in those issues are applicable to

whether this court should grant relief, and will be considered to that extent. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Issues three, four and five are DISMISSED. 

2. The clerk shall serve by regular 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. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty 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 days of his receipt of the answer.

Case 4:07-cv-03933-PJH Document 3 Filed 08/27/07 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

4. Respondent may 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 days of

receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply

within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

5. 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\MCCARTHY3933.OSC.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-03933-PJH Document 3 Filed 08/27/07 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY M.MCCARTHY,

Petitioner,

 v.

IVAN D. CLAY,

Respondent. /

Case Number: CV07-03933 PJH 

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 August 27, 2007, 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.

Gregory Mark McCarthy [P-74044] 59–07

Sierra Conservation Center

5150 O’Byrnes Ferry Road

Jamestown, CA 95327

Dated: August 27, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Nichole Heuerman, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-03933-PJH Document 3 Filed 08/27/07 Page 5 of 5