Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05124/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05124-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVAN KILGORE,

Petitioner,

v.

J. WALKER, acting warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-5124 SI (pr)

ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Ivan Kilgore, an inmate at the California State Prison - Sacramento, filed this pro se

action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the

court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases. His in forma pauperis application and a motion for funds also are before the court.

BACKGROUND

Kilgore states in his petition that he was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court

of first degree murder with a special circumstance of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle.

see Cal. Penal Code §§ 187, 190.2(a)(21). On April 9, 2006, he was sentenced to life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He appealed. His conviction was affirmed by

the California Court of Appeal in 2004 and his petition for review was denied by the California

Supreme Court in 2006. He also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California

Supreme Court that was denied on September 10, 2007. He then filed this action.

Case 3:07-cv-05124-SI Document 4 Filed 03/11/08 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. Review Of Petition

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). A

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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). 

The petition asserts the following claims: (1) the trial court violated Kilgore's right to due

process by ruling that, if Kilgore testified, he could be cross-examined with his testimony in his

Oklahoma involuntary manslaughter case, (2) he received ineffective assistance of appellate

counsel when appellate counsel failed to present to the state court the federal question regarding

the instructional error on particular points of second-degree drive-by murder, (3) the court's

failure to instruct the jury on the doctrine of transferred intent as to a shooting in self-defense

violated his right to due process, (4) the trial court's refusal to allow evidence of bad character

regarding Anderson and Dandy violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to confront

witnesses and present a defense, (5) Kilgore received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in

the numerous ways alleged at pages. 6(A)-6(B) of the petition. Liberally construed, these claims

are cognizable in a federal habeas action and warrant a response. 

B. Motion For Funds

Kilgore filed an "ex parte motion for provisions of funds to obtain transcripts of

Oklahoma trial and court order to produce and submit transcript to the court and petitioner."

(Docket # 3.) (He apparently wants an authorization of up to $5,000 to obtain those transcripts.)

Case 3:07-cv-05124-SI Document 4 Filed 03/11/08 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

3

Respondent will be given an opportunity to be heard on the motion before the court rules on it.

The court will set a briefing schedule.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states cognizable claims for habeas relief and warrants a response.

The court will not set a briefing schedule at this time, however, because it prefers to decide the

motion for provision of funds first. 

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

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State

of California. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before May 30, 2008, an

opposition to the motion for provision of funds or a statement of non-opposition. 

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the opposition, he must do so by filing a reply

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before June 27, 2008.

5. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 2.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 11, 2008 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05124-SI Document 4 Filed 03/11/08 Page 3 of 3