Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04572/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04572-0/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWAYNE D. WHITTAKER, AT6483,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-4572 SK (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(ECF Nos. 2 & 3)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, has filed a 

pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction 

and sentence from San Francisco County Superior Court. He also seeks appointment of 

counsel and leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

The petition is properly before the undersigned for initial review because petitioner 

has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of multiples crimes against four separate victims: 

attempted residential robbery, two counts of residential burglary committed while a person 

was home, two counts of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury, 

inflicting injury on an elder with force likely to cause great bodily injury with personal 

infliction of great bodily injury, and possession of stolen property. The court also found 

petitioner had three prior robbery convictions and, on May 5, 2014, sentenced him to five 

consecutive indeterminate life terms under California’s Three Strikes law and additional 

enhancements.

Case 5:16-cv-04572-LHK Document 6 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal 

and the Supreme Court of California, which on March 9, 2016 denied review of a petition 

allegedly raising the same claims raised here.

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 based on three claims: (1) the trial 

court improperly directed a verdict on his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity; (2) the 

trial court improperly denied his motion to continue the trial; and (3) his sentence of 

consecutive life sentences in unconstitutional. Liberally construed, the claims appear 

cognizable 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).

C. Request for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner seeks appointment of counsel on the ground that he is “developmentally 

disable[d]” and that this “makes it hard for [him] to read” and “understand[] materials 

regarding his case.” Mot. (ECF No. 2) at 1. Petitioner’s request (ECF No. 2) is DENIED 

without prejudice because petitioner, perhaps alone or perhaps with the assistance of 

another inmate, clearly presented in his petition his three claims for relief, which he 

litigated on direct appeal with the assistance of counsel, and an order to show cause is 

issuing. Accord Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (denial of 

Case 5:16-cv-04572-LHK Document 6 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

appointment of counsel within discretion of district court where petitioner clearly 

presented issues in petition and accompanying memorandum). Petitioner may renew his 

request if the circumstances of the case change and the court will appoint counsel on its 

own motion if an evidentiary hearing is later required. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 

F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986) (unless an evidentiary hearing is required, decision to 

appoint counsel in habeas corpus proceedings is within discretion of district court; 

appointment of counsel mandatory if evidentiary hearing is required).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed IFP (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED.

2. The clerk shall serve (1) a copy of this order, (2) the petition and all 

attachments thereto, and (3) a notice of assignment of prisoner case to a United States 

magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate judge jurisdiction consent or declination to 

consent form (requesting that respondent consent or decline to consent within 28 days of 

receipt of service), 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 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.

4. 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 must serve and file an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition not more than 28 days after the motion is served 

Case 5:16-cv-04572-LHK Document 6 Filed 08/23/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and filed, and respondent must serve and file a reply to an opposition not more than 14 

days after the opposition is served and filed.

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 

must also keep the court and all parties informed of any change of address.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2016 _________________________

SALLIE KIM

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04572-LHK Document 6 Filed 08/23/16 Page 4 of 4