Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00476/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00476-0/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

MELVIN LYNN HUFFMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

M. S. EVANS, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-476 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Melvin Lynn Huffman, an inmate at the Salinas Valley State Prison, 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 also is before the court.

BACKGROUND

Huffman states in his petition that he was convicted in Santa Clara County Superior Court

of "290," which appears to be a reference to California Penal Code § 290, regarding the

registration duties of sex offenders. He alleges that on an unidentified date he was sentenced to

45 years in prison. He appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction and

the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review. He then filed this action for a writ

of habeas corpus. 

Case 3:07-cv-00476-SI Document 5 Filed 04/10/07 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

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: First, Huffman alleges that he was deprived

of a fair trial because the trial court refused to provide funds to hire an expert witness. Liberally

construed, this appears to be a due process claim. Second, the petition appears to allege that

defense counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain telephone records from October 2002 that

would prove perjury by someone. Liberally construed, this appears to be a claim for ineffective

assistance of counsel. Third, petitioner alleges that he "was sentenced under a mistrial no expert

witness - no phone records to prove that he lied." Petition, p. 6. The third claim is dismissed

because it is not understandable and does not appear to allege a separate claim for a violation of

federally protected right. The federal writ of habeas corpus is available only for violations of

the "Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

The petition is quite lacking in factual detail. This court assumes that the factual basis

of each of the claims was asserted in the appellate briefs and that the federal constitutional basis

of each of the claims was asserted in the petition for review – documents likely prepared on

Huffman's behalf by counsel. Rather than have Huffman try to amend to explain his claims in

greater detail, the better course of action is for the court to order respondent to answer the

petition. If respondent cannot understand what the claims are after looking at the briefs filed in

Huffman's appeal, he may move to dismiss on that ground. 

Case 3:07-cv-00476-SI Document 5 Filed 04/10/07 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

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

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

 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 June 22, 2007, 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 must file with the

answer a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and

that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

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

with the Court and serving it on respondent on or before July 27, 2007.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 10, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00476-SI Document 5 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 3