Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00517/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00517-0/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 Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.03\Ekman517_osc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRETT DANIEL EKMAN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-00517 JW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, an inmate at the California State Prison in Corcoran, filed a pro se

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his

state conviction. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Petitioner was given leave to file

an amended petition because his original petition was not on the appropriate form

nor contained adequate information for this Court to review. The amended petition

is now before the Court for initial review.

///

///

///

Case 5:03-cv-00517-JW Document 19 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 5
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 Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.03\Ekman517_osc.wpd 2

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner was convicted of auto theft, which

constituted as a third strike against petitioner. Petitioner was sentenced on or about

September 4, 2001, to twenty-six years to life in state prison. 

Petitioner claims that he exhausted his state judicial remedies before

proceeding with the instant federal habeas petition.

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. Legal Claims

Petitioner raises three claims for relief: 1) he was placed in a photo-lineup

without the presence of counsel, which constitutes an unlawful search and seizure;

2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to argue the unlawfulness of the

photo-lineup at trial; and 3) innocence. Liberally construed, only the second of

petitioner’s claims appears cognizable under § 2254 and merits an answer from

respondent. Claims one and three are dismissed for the following reasons. 

1. Unlawful search and seizure

 Federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims is not available 

unless the state did not provide an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those

claims. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82, 494 (1976). Even if the state

Case 5:03-cv-00517-JW Document 19 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 5
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 Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.03\Ekman517_osc.wpd 3

court’s determination of the Fourth Amendment issue is improper, it will not be

remedied in a federal habeas corpus action as long as the petitioner was provided a

full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. See Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d 403,

408 ( 9th Cir. 1983). California state procedure provides an opportunity for full

litigation of any Fourth Amendment claim. See Gordon v. Duran, 895 F. 2d 610,

613-14 (9th Cir. 1990) (whether or not defendant litigated Fourth Amendment claim

in state court is irrelevant if he had opportunity to do so under California law). In

light of the fact that petitioner had the opportunity to, and did, litigate his Fourth

Amendment claims in state court, his federal habeas claim that the photo line-up was

invalid is legally meritless and therefore must be DISMISSED. 

2. Innocence

According to petitioner, there is “overwhelming evidence of [his]

complete innocence” and “the very fact that [he] was with District Attorney

witnesses... and then running from the police all at the same time this crime

transpires was already known before charges were applied.” (Pet. at 5.) Petitioner

further states: “I don’t believe I can be put into a photo line-up and charged legally

because I was with someone during the commission of the crime and this is my case.

The trial was illegal.” Id. This claims is DENIED as without merit. Petitioner’s

purported claim of “complete innocence” amounts to no more than a free-standing

claim of actual innocence not cognizable in federal habeas. Claims of actual

innocence, even if based on newly discovered evidence, have never been held to

state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation

occurring in the underlying state criminal proceeding. Herrera v. Collins, 506 US

390, 400 (1993). Our court of appeals has made clear that after Herrera there can be

no habeas relief based solely on a petitioner’s claim of actual innocence of the

crime. See Coley v. Gonzalez, 55 F.3d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1995); Swan v

Peterson, 6 F.3d 1373, 1384 (9th Cir. 1993). That Herrera left open the question of

Case 5:03-cv-00517-JW Document 19 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 5
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 Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.03\Ekman517_osc.wpd 4

whether “execution” of a factually innocent person violates the Constitution does not

compel a different result. This is not a capital case. Accordingly, this claim is

DISMISSED. 

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 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. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

sixty (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 issued. 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 thirty (30) days of his

receipt of the answer. 

3. 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 nonopposition within thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file

with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of

any opposition.

Case 5:03-cv-00517-JW Document 19 Filed 06/07/07 Page 4 of 5
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 Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.03\Ekman517_osc.wpd 5

4. 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. 

DATED: June 7, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:03-cv-00517-JW Document 19 Filed 06/07/07 Page 5 of 5