Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06507/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06507-1/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)

---

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

PHILLIP WHITE,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD,

Respondent.

Case No. 17-cv-06507-SK 

AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Regarding Docket No. 1

Petitioner, a federal prisoner incarcerated at Solano State Prison, has filed a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a conviction from Alameda County 

Superior Court. 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

On August 25, 2008, the Alameda County District Attorney charged Petitioner with 

murder. Petitioner was found incompetent to stand trial and committed to Atascadero State 

Hospital. On January 14, 2011, the court found that Plaintiff was competent to stand trial and 

reinstated the criminal charges. A jury convicted Petitioner of first degree murder, and Petitioner 

was sentenced to twenty-five years to life, plus a consecutive term of one year for use of a deadly 

weapon.

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal and the 

Supreme Court of California, which on August 10, 2016 denied review his petition.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard.

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person “in 

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 4:17-cv-06507-YGR Document 6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 3
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

2241(c)(3). 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. 

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).

B. Petitioner’s Legal Claims.

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by asserting that his Fourteenth Amendment 

right to due process was violated by prosecutorial misconduct, by conviction without sufficient 

evidence, and by dismissal of his claim of incompetency in his absence. Liberally construed, the 

claims appear potentially colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an answer from 

Respondents.

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 petition and all 

attachments thereto upon the California Attorney General’s Office, 455 Golden Gate 

Avenue, Suite 11000, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within 60 days of the date 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 issued. Respondent 

shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the 

administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the 

petition. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:17-cv-06507-YGR Document 6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 2 of 3
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

3. If the 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2018

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-06507-YGR Document 6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 3 of 3