Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03979/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03979-0/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)

---

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

AN DUY NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

v.

MIKE EVANS, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-3979 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

An Duy Nguyen, an inmate at the Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se action for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the court for

review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. His

in forma pauperis application also is before the court.

BACKGROUND

Nguyen's petition provides the following information. He was convicted in Santa Clara

County Superior Court of second degree murder. On February 25, 2006, he was sentenced to

15 years to life in prison plus one year. His conviction was affirmed by the California Court of

Appeal and his petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court. He also filed

an unsuccessful state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court before filing this action.

Case 3:07-cv-03979-SI Document 3 Filed 09/18/07 Page 1 of 3
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

This court may entertain a petition for 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). A

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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). 

The petition asserts the following claims: (1) Nguyen was denied a fair trial because the

prosecutor vouched for the credibility of a witness, (2) Nguyen was denied a fair trial because

of the prosecutor's misconduct during argument, (3) Nguyen was denied effective assistance of

trial counsel because trial counsel failed to object to the prosecutor's many acts of misconduct,

including vouching for the credibility of a witness, (4) he was denied due process by improper

pinpoint jury instructions, (5) "his conviction must be reversed because CALJIC No. 5.17

contains erroneous language concerning the doctrine of imperfect self-defense," Petition For

Review, p. 15, (6) cumulative error based on an accumulation of the errors in claims 1-5, and

(7) appellate counsel failed to provide effective assistance in that he (a) failed to argue that trial

counsel was ineffective when he failed to object to the improper vouching, (b) failed to argue

error in the admission of Bao Tran's plea agreement, (c) failed to argue error in the trial court

allowing the jury to consider a verdict of involuntary manslaughter, and (d) failed to argue that

the prosecutor's many acts of misconduct denied Nguyen a fair trial. Liberally construed, Claims

1-4 and 6-7 are cognizable in a federal habeas action and warrant a response.

Claim 5 does not allege a violation of Nguyen's federal constitutional rights and therefore

is dismissed. The federal writ of habeas corpus is available only for violations of the

"Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Case 3:07-cv-03979-SI Document 3 Filed 09/18/07 Page 2 of 3
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

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states cognizable claims for habeas relief and warrants a response.

Claim 5 is dismissed. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State

of California. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before November 23, 2007,

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 must file with the

answer a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and

that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the Court and serving it on respondent on or before December 28, 2007.

5. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED because petitioner has

ample funds to pay the filing fee. (Docket # 2.) Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee no

later than October 31, 2007 or this action will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 18, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03979-SI Document 3 Filed 09/18/07 Page 3 of 3