Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02518/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02518-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KHOI DINH HUYNH,

Petitioner,

 v.

TOMAS L. CAREY,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-2518 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

(Docket No. 2)

On April 11, 2006, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has applied for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

BACKGROUND

In 2002, in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, petitioner pled nolo contendere

to charges of assault, as well as to an enhancement alleging a prior conviction. The trial

judge sentenced him to a term of 12 years in state prison. He challenged his conviction and

sentence unsuccessfully in habeas petitions filed at all three levels of the California courts. 

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);

Case 3:06-cv-02518-MMC Document 3 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court 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) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 

431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner alleges three claims in his petition. The first two claims, as presently

pleaded, are not sufficiently clear to be understandable. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding habeas petitioner must state claims with sufficient

specificity). In his first claim, petitioner states his prior felony conviction “was a due process

violation for PC § 245(a)(1).” Rather than explaining the basis for the asserted due process

violation, petitioner cites numerous and disparate legal concepts, including “excessive

punishment”, “ex-post facto,” “warrantless search,” California Rule of Criminal Procedure

4.414, and equal protection. Although it appears petitioner’s intent is to challenge the use of

his prior conviction to enhance his sentence, the basis for such challenge cannot be gleaned

from his petition. Petitioner will be given leave to amend to clearly and concisely explain the

grounds upon which this claim rests. 

In his second claim, petitioner alleges his sentence is “disproportionate”; he further

alleges “ambiguity is evident due to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” and that “the issue of

specific intent under the doctrine of mens rea” was not presented or “weighed” properly. 

Again, petitioner has not explained the relationship between these various legal concepts, 

much less how they form the basis for federal habeas relief. Leave to amend this claim

likewise will be granted. 

Lastly, in his third claim, petitioner alleges that the imposition of a $5000 restitution

fine without consideration of petitioner’s ability to pay violates both his right to due process

and California law. The alleged violation of state law is not a cognizable basis for federal

Case 3:06-cv-02518-MMC Document 3 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

habeas relief. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). The alleged violation of

due process, liberally construed, is cognizable. 

CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing, the Court rules as follows:

1. The third claim in the petition states a cognizable basis for relief, as set forth

above. The first and second claims in the petition are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND. If petitioner wishes to amend these claims, he must file, within thirty (30) days of

the date this order is filed, an amended petition in which he corrects the deficiencies noted

above. The amended petition must include the caption and civil case number used in this

order, No. C 06-2518 MMC (PR), and must include the words AMENDED PETITION on

the first page. In the amended petition, petitioner must include all the claims he wishes to

present; in particular, petitioner must reassert in his amended petition the cognizable third

claim from the instant petition.

2. If petitioner fails to timely amend the petition as ordered herein, the first

and second claims will be dismissed with prejudice and this matter will proceed only on

the basis of the third claim.

3. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) or Local Rule 3-11. 

4. In light of petitioner’s lack of funds, the application to proceed in forma

pauperis is GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket No. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 14, 2006 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02518-MMC Document 3 Filed 06/14/06 Page 3 of 3