Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06291/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06291-0/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

BETTY A. CHEEKS,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-6291 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Betty A. Cheeks, an inmate at the California Institute for Women / Malibu Conservation

Camp, filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Her

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. Her in forma pauperis application also is before the court.

BACKGROUND

Cheeks states in her petition that she pled nolo contendere and was convicted in the Ukiah

Municipal Court of uttering a check with insufficient funds, see Cal. Penal Code § 476a, and

obtaining public aid unlawfully, see Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 10980. She states that she was

sentenced to a term of 10 years, 4 months on May 16, 2005. She appealed. Apparently, her

conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal and her petition for review was

denied by the California Supreme Court. It is unclear whether she also filed state habeas

petitions before filing this action.

Case 3:07-cv-06291-SI Document 4 Filed 04/04/08 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 one claim: Cheeks claims that her rights to due process and a jury

trial were violated when the court imposed an upper term sentence. See Cunningham v.

California, 127 S. Ct. 856, 863-64 (2007); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

Liberally construed, the claim is cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding.

A proper respondent has not been named in the petition. The respondent in a habeas

action is "the state officer having custody of the applicant" if the applicant is in custody. Rule

2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. "The proper person to be served in the usual case

is either the warden of the institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief

officer in charge of state penal institutions." Rule 2, advisory committee's notes. Cf. Rumsfeld

v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004). Failure to name a petitioner's custodian as a respondent

deprives the federal court of personal jurisdiction. See Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21

F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Cheeks identifies the respondent as "People," but that is not a

proper respondent. The warden (or chief executive) of the facility where Cheeks is incarcerated

usually is the correct respondent. Cheeks must amend to substitute in the warden of her prison

or the chief executive of the conservation camp who has custody of her as the respondent.

Case 3:07-cv-06291-SI Document 4 Filed 04/04/08 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

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 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

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, she 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 DENIED because she has sufficient

funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee. (Docket # 3.) Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee no later

than May 9, 2008. Failure to pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of this action. 

6. Petitioner must file an amendment to her petition for writ of habeas corpus to name

the proper respondent. The document should have the case name and case number used on this

order, should be labeled "Amendment To Petition," and need merely state "Petitioner files this

amendment to her petition for writ of habeas corpus to substitute [insert name here] as the

respondent in this action." In the place indicated, petitioner should provide the name of the

warden or chief executive of the facility where she is incarcerated. Petitioner must sign and

file the amendment no later than May 9, 2008. Failure to file the amendment by the deadline

will result in the dismissal of this action for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 4, 2008 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06291-SI Document 4 Filed 04/04/08 Page 3 of 3