Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02193/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02193-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL KIP CLEVELAND,

Petitioner,

 v.

A.P. KANE,

Respondent.

_____________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-2193 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the California Training Facility,

Soledad, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. 

BACKGROUND

In 1985, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, petitioner pled guilty to first degree

murder with the use of a weapon, and was sentenced to state prison for a term of 25 years to

life plus two years. He did not appeal that conviction. In January 2005, the California

Department of Corrections began deducting 44% of every dollar earned by petitioner and has

been applying the deducted sums to restitution ordered by the trial court in connection with

petitioner’s conviction. Petitioner, believing these deductions violated the terms of his plea

agreement, attempted to obtain the transcript of the hearings concerning his plea agreement

and entry of plea, for purposes of filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The superior

court denied his request for transcripts. Petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus in the California Court of Appeal, claiming the denial of the transcripts violated his

constitutional rights. The petition was denied, and petitioner filed a petition for review of that

denial, which petition was denied by the Supreme Court of California. 
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

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);

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. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-

76 (1977)). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims that he is indigent, and that the state trial court has denied his requests

for a transcript of the trial court hearings regarding his entry of plea and plea agreement. 

According to petitioner, he needs the transcript to pursue a claim in a state habeas petition,

specifically, a claim that a recent change in prison policy is causing a violation of his plea

agreement. Petitioner’s second claim is that the state courts have denied his requests for

transcripts in a summary manner, which, petitioner asserts, violates California Rule of Court

4.551(g). 

Petitioner’s first claim, when liberally construed, is cognizable. Due process and equal

protection require that indigent criminal defendants be provided free transcripts for use on

appeal. Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 (1971); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 18-

20 (1956) (per curium). It is also a violation of equal protection for a state to deny an indigent

petitioner a transcript for use in habeas proceedings, where such transcripts could be purchased

by claimants with sufficient funds to do so. Long v. Dist. Court of Iowa, 385 U.S. 192, 194-95

(1966) (per curium).

Petitioner’s second claim is not cognizable. First, errors of state law are not cognizable
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

in federal habeas corpus petitions. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). 

Moreover, errors in the state post-conviction review process, such as the summary denials of

petitioner’s state habeas petitions, may not be addressed through federal habeas corpus

proceedings. See Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 939 (9th Cir. 1998); see, e.g., Hopkinson v.

Shillinger, 866 F.2d 1185, 1218-20 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding state court's summary denial of

petition for post-conviction relief is procedural deficiency in review process that does no

violence to federal constitutional rights); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(i) (holding claims of

ineffective assistance of state or federal post-conviction counsel not cognizable on federal

habeas review).

CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. Petitioner’s second claim is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim

for relief.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

petition, along with all attachments thereto, upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the

Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on

petitioner.

 3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 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 based on petitioner’s cognizable claim. 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 30 days of his receipt of the answer.

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within 60 days of the date this order is

filed, 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
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

motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement

of non-opposition within 30 days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the

Court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of receipt of any opposition.

5. Alternatively, respondent may notify the Court, within 60 days of the date

this order is filed, a notice to the Court that he has furnished plaintiff with a copy of the

transcripts he seeks from the 1985 proceedings in the Los Angeles County Superior

Court. Accompanying such notice shall be a proof of service of the transcripts upon

petitioner.

6. 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. 

7. It is petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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).

8. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will

be granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline which they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 6, 2005

 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge