Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00434/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00434-2/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)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY L. POPE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

D. K. SISTO, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0434 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison, Solano,

has filed a pro se Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("SAP"). 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pleaded no contest to attempted second degree robbery, and

admitted having suffered three prior felony convictions, in Alameda County

superior court. On April 2, 2004, he was sentenced to 19 years in state prison.

Petitioner did not appeal, but unsuccessfully sought collateral relief from

the state courts. On January 17, 2007, the Supreme Court of California denied

his final petition for state habeas relief.

Case 3:07-cv-00434-CRB Document 10 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 4
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). 

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. Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising several claims,

including ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct and

improper sentencing. 

A defendant who pleads guilty (or no contest) cannot later raise in habeas

corpus proceedings independent claims relating to the deprivation of

constitutional rights that occurred before the plea of guilty (or no contest). See

Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 319-20 (1983) (guilty plea forecloses

consideration of pre-plea constitutional deprivations); Tollett v. Henderson, 411

U.S. 258, 266-67 (1973) (same); Moran v. Godinez, 57 F.3d 690, 700 (9th Cir.

1994) (refusing to consider contention that petitioner’s attorneys were ineffective

because they failed to attempt to prevent the use of his confession as pre-plea

constitutional violation); see also Hudson v. Moran, 760 F.2d 1027, 1030 (9th

Cir.) (finding no constitutional violation where defendant was not informed that

guilty plea would foreclose subsequent habeas relief), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 981

(1985). Petitioner's claims of pre-plea constitutional violations accordingly are

DISMISSED. Liberally construed, his other claims appear minimally cognizable

Case 3:07-cv-00434-CRB Document 10 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 4
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

under § 2254 and merit 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).

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

SAP 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

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 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 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.

Case 3:07-cv-00434-CRB Document 10 Filed 12/17/07 Page 3 of 4
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 G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.07\Pope1.osc.wpd 4

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. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Dec. 14, 2007 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00434-CRB Document 10 Filed 12/17/07 Page 4 of 4