Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04583/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04583-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY L. HANDS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

R. BARNES, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-4583 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docket # 3 & 4)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Correctional

Center in Susanville, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also seeks to leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28

U.S.C. § 1915.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pleaded no contest to one count of carjacking in Alameda

County Superior Court. The court found that petitioner had suffered two prior

convictions and found true two enhancement allegations for committing a violent

crime on the vulnerable and against the elderly. On July 25, 2007, petitioner was

sentenced to 17 years in state prison, ordered to pay restitution fines of $400, and

given 952 days credit for time served.

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court

of Appeal but did not seek further direct review from the Supreme Court of

California. He later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme

Court of California allegedly raising the same claims raised here. It was denied

on May 13, 2009.

Case 3:09-cv-04583-CRB Document 5 Filed 03/15/10 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

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 by raising claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel during trial and on appeal. He also claims that

the court did not properly advise him before he entered his plea of no contest and

that it improperly denied him pre-sentence credits. Liberally construed, the

claims appear minimally 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).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (docket # 3 & 4) is

GRANTED.

2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

petition and all attachments thereto 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. 

/

Case 3:09-cv-04583-CRB Document 5 Filed 03/15/10 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 G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.09\Hands, A1.osc.wpd 3

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 shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or

statement of non-opposition within 30 days of receipt of the motion, and

respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days

of receipt of any opposition.

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. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2010 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04583-CRB Document 5 Filed 03/15/10 Page 3 of 3