Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06365/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06365-0/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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL VINCENT WHITE,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT AYERS, JR., warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 06-6365 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

INTRODUCTION

Darrell Vincent White, currently in custody in San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se

action seeking 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. 

BACKGROUND

White was convicted in the Madera County Superior Court of rape and kidnapping with

the intent to commit rape. He was sentenced on June 4, 1993 to a term in prison. His habeas

petition does not challenge that conviction but instead challenges the execution of his sentence:

he appears to allege that prison officials discovered an error in the sentence imposed and then

refused to refer the matter for sentencing review and correction. White apparently filed petitions

for writ of habeas corpus in state court raising this issue before filing this action.

Case 3:06-cv-06365-SI Document 5 Filed 12/15/06 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, liberally construed, alleges that prison officials refuse to take the steps

necessary to correct an error in the sentence imposed. Liberally construed, the allegation states

a claim for a due process violation cognizable in a federal habeas action. A person has a

fundamental due process right not to be subjected to a sentence that exceeds that allowed by state

law. See generally Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358 (1977); 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 a cognizable claim 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 February 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

Case 3:06-cv-06365-SI Document 5 Filed 12/15/06 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

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 March 23, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 15, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06365-SI Document 5 Filed 12/15/06 Page 3 of 3