Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05324/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05324-1/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

FRED ARNOLD,

Petitioner,

 v

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,

Respondent.

 /

No C-09-5324 VRW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERS

(Doc #14)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the

California State Prison in Solano, California, has filed a pro se

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC § 2254. Doc #1. 

He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 USC

section 1915. Doc #14. 

I

Petitioner entered a no contest plea in San Mateo County

superior court to possession of cocaine and misdemeanor resisting

arrest and admitted the truth of a 1981 prior conviction, which was

alleged as a “strike” under California’s Three-Strikes law. At

Case 3:09-cv-05324-JW Document 15 Filed 01/27/10 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

sentencing, after petitioner moved unsuccessfully to dismiss the

strike allegation, the trial court imposed a sentence of sixteen

months for the conviction of possession of cocaine, which the court

doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, for a total term of

thirty-two months. Doc #1 at 27. Petitioner unsuccessfully

appealed the judgment to the California court of appeal and the

Supreme Court of California. Id at 2 & 27-36. The instant federal

petition followed. 

II

A

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

USC § 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

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising a 

claim that there was insufficient evidence to prove that his prior

conviction qualified as a “strike” and that the trial court

therefore erred in using it to double his prison term. 

Specifically, petitioner claims that his 1981 prior conviction was

for grand theft, which does not qualify as a “strike,” rather than

Case 3:09-cv-05324-JW Document 15 Filed 01/27/10 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

robbery, which does. Liberally construed, this claim appears

cognizable under § 2254 and merits an answer from respondent. See

Zichko v Idaho, 247 F3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir 2001) (federal courts

must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus

liberally).

III 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is GRANTED. 

2. 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. 

3. 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.

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file a motion to

Case 3:09-cv-05324-JW Document 15 Filed 01/27/10 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

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 within

fifteen (15) 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 also must keep the

court and all parties informed of any change of address. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

G:\PRO-SE\VRW\HC.09\Arnold-09-5324-osc.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-05324-JW Document 15 Filed 01/27/10 Page 4 of 4