Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02792/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02792-0/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

DANE M. SCOTT,

Petitioner,

 v.

S. GARCIA, Warden,

Respondent. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-2792 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On April 24, 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 paid the

filing fee.

BACKGROUND

A jury in Santa Clara County Superior Court found petitioner guilty of lewd conduct

upon a child, and various related charges. On April 18, 2002, petitioner was sentenced to a

term of 100 years to life in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed and the

Supreme Court of California denied the petition for review. Petitioner thereafter filed

unsuccessful petitions for a writ of habeas corpus at all three levels of the California courts. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a

Case 3:06-cv-02792-MMC Document 3 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 4
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

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). The 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 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 claims: (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct by presenting false

evidence and withholding exculpatory evidence, in violation of petitioner’s right to due

process; (2) the admission into evidence of propensity evidence, and the jury instruction

thereon, violated petitioner’s rights to due process and equal protection; (3) the trial court’s

disallowing testimony by a defense witness at sentencing, denying petitioner’s request for

transcripts for purposes of preparing a new trial motion, and imposition of consecutive

sentences violated petitioner’s rights to due process, a jury trial, and notice of his charges;

(4) petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to adequately

investigate both the charges pertaining to one of the victims as well as petitioner’s prior

“strike” convictions; (5) the admission of testimony regarding the complaining witness’s

credibility, the exclusion of other testimony regarding such witness, and the cumulative

effect of those rulings by the trial court, violated petitioner’s constitutional rights;

(6) petitioner’s second attorney provided ineffective assistance at the post-conviction

proceedings; and (7) the California Court of Appeal’s failure to consider a motion petitioner

filed pro se in conjunction with his appeal violated his right to due process.

Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims are cognizable.

Case 3:06-cv-02792-MMC Document 3 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 4
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

CONCLUSION

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

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

amended petition, along with all attachments thereto, upon respondent and respondent's

attorney, the Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy

of this order on petitioner.

 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of

the date this order is filed, 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 based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. 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 30 days of the date the answer is filed.

3. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within 60 days of the date this order

is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 30 days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent

shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of the date the

opposition is filed. 

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. 

5. 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).

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will

Case 3:06-cv-02792-MMC Document 3 Filed 06/19/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

be granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline which they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 19, 2006

__________________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-02792-MMC Document 3 Filed 06/19/06 Page 4 of 4