Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04745/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04745-0/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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\5.18.2007\06-04745 Hamel04745_osc.frm

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GWAYNE A. HAMEL,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-04745 JW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison

in Ione, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

According to the petition, petitioner filed a state habeas corpus petition which

was denied by the Santa Clara County Superior Court on April 18, 2005. The

California Court of Appeals denied the petition on June 2, 2005, and the Supreme

Court of California denied review on May 10, 2006. Petitioner filed the instant

federal habeas petition on August 4, 2006.

///

Case 5:06-cv-04745-JW Document 5 Filed 05/18/07 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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\5.18.2007\06-04745 Hamel04745_osc.frm 2

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner was convicted by a jury in Superior

Court for the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara of a lewd act

with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a). 

Petitioner was sentenced to eighteen years and eight months in state prison. 

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. 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner raises three claims: 1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for

failing to investigate; 2) the suppression of exculpatory evidence by the prosecution; 

and 3) prosecutorial misconduct. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims appear

cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from respondent.

CONCLUSION 

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

Case 5:06-cv-04745-JW Document 5 Filed 05/18/07 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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\5.18.2007\06-04745 Hamel04745_osc.frm 3

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 issued. 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. 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 nonopposition thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with

the court and serve on petitioner a reply 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 must also keep the court and all parties informed of any change 

of address. 

DATED: May 18 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04745-JW Document 5 Filed 05/18/07 Page 3 of 3