Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04872/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04872-0/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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-05-04872 RMW

JAH

E-FILED on 1/17/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAVID L. W. HILL,

Petitioner,

v.

THOMAS L. CAREY, Warden,

Respondent.

No. C-05-04872 RMW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

[Re Docket No. 1]

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court

will require respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner plead guilty in the Marin County Superior Court to two counts of robbery and

admitted that he used a firearm during both offenses. Petitioner states that he was sentenced to the

upper term on one robbery count, one-third the middle term on the other robbery count, and the

middle term on the firearm enhancement. Petitioner claims that his sentence was based on

consideration of evidence in a Probation Department report in violation of Blakely v. Washington,

542 U.S. 296 (2004). The California Court of Appeal affirmed petitioner's sentence. People v. Hill,

Case 5:05-cv-04872-RMW Document 2 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 4
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

1 This denial was apparently without prejudice to seeking review subsequent to the

issuance of an opinion in the then-pending case of People v. Black, 35 Cal. 4th 1238 (2005). It is

not clear if petitioner sought review by the California Supreme Court after Black.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-05-04872 RMW

JAH 2

119 Cal. App. 4th 85 (2004). The California Supreme Court denied petitioner's request for review.1

The instant petition for habeas corpus was filed in this court on November 29, 2005.

II. ANALYSIS

1. Standard of Review

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); 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. 

2. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner claims that his sentence was based on consideration of evidence in violation of his

Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as stated in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). 

The court will require respondent to show cause why the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should

not be granted. 

III. ORDER 

Respondent is ordered to show cause why petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus,

filed on November 29, 2005, should not be granted. 

 1. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition and all attachments thereto

upon the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of

California. 

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

have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues

Case 5:05-cv-04872-RMW Document 2 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 4
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—No. C-05-04872 RMW

JAH 3

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 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

within sixty days of the issuance of this order. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner

shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition

within thirty days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve

on petitioner a reply within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

DATED: 1/17/06 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04872-RMW Document 2 Filed 01/17/06 Page 3 of 4
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—No. C-05-04872 RMW

JAH 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Petitioner:

Kathleen Woods Novoa kwnovoa@mac.com 

Counsel for Respondent:

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 1/17/06 /s/ JH 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-04872-RMW Document 2 Filed 01/17/06 Page 4 of 4