Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05832/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05832-0/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

TIMOTHY HOBSON,

Petitioner,

v.

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-5832 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Timothy Hobson, an inmate at the Mule Creek 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

Hobson states in his petition that he was convicted in Santa Clara County Superior Court

of nine counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14, See Cal. Penal Code § 288(a), and

was found to have suffered 10 prior convictions. On June 16, 2005, he was sentenced to 225

years to life in prison. His conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal and his

petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court. He then filed this action.

Case 3:07-cv-05832-SI Document 5 Filed 03/03/08 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 two claims. First, Hobson contends that his sentence of 225 years to

life amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. 

Second, Hobson contends that his sentence violates due process in that it is in excess of that

allowed by state law because the Three Strikes law does not authorize consecutive 25-to-life

terms. Liberally construed, the claims are cognizable in federal habeas and warrant a response.

See Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 303 (1983); Walker v. Endell, 850 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir.

1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 926, and cert. denied, 488 U.S. 981 (1988). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

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

 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 May 9, 2008, 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

Case 3:07-cv-05832-SI Document 5 Filed 03/03/08 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

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 June 13, 2008.

5. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 2, # 4.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 3, 2008 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05832-SI Document 5 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 3