Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06292/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06292-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK ANTHONY SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS and

JERRY BOWN, ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-6292 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANT OF LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Substance

Abuse Facility in Corcoran, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

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

 Venue is proper because the conviction was obtained in Santa Clara County, which

is in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pleaded no contest to ten felonies and one misdemeanor, and admitted a

prior strike conviction. People v. Sanchez, 2004 WL 2349552 at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 20,

2004). He was sentenced to prison for sixteen years and four months. Id. The conviction

was reversed on appeal because the sentencing court had failed to rule on petitioner’s

request to withdraw his plea, a request which was made half-way through the sentencing

colloquy. Id. at *3. The court of appeal remanded to allow petitioner to file his motion to

withdraw the plea, with instructions that if petitioner did not file a motion or if the motion

were denied, the judgment should be reinstated. Id. It is unclear from the petition exactly

what happened on remand, but apparently the same sentence was imposed. It is also

Case 4:07-cv-06292-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/25/08 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

unclear what happened afterward, but it appears from the California appellate court website

that an appeal may have been taken and then voluntarily dismissed. Petitioner’s

subsequent state habeas petition was denied by the California Supreme Court. 

DISCUSSION

A. 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). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are

available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each

of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts

that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes

(quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which

appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon

v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J.,

concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) His plea was not

knowing and intelligent; (2) his conviction violated his rights against being subjected to

double jeopardy; (3) his counsel was ineffective; and (4) his sentence was based on facts

not tried to a jury. These claims are sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (document number 4 on the docket) is

GRANTED. His earlier motion (document 2) is DENIED as moot. 

Case 4:07-cv-06292-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/25/08 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

2. The clerk shall serve by regular 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. 

3. 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 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 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 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.

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 keep the court 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). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24 , 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\SANCHEZ6292.OSC.wpd 

Case 4:07-cv-06292-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 3