Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01976/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01976-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAYNE E. IRVIN,

Petitioner,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

/

No. C 16-1976 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

(Dkt. No. 1)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging his state court conviction. He has paid the filing fee. 

He has also filed a motion for a stay and abeyance. For the reasons discussed below, the motion

is denied, but respondent is ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

STATEMENT

In 1998, petitioner was convicted in Humboldt County Superior Court and sentenced to

a term of 23 years in state prison. His appeals to the California Court of Appeals and the

California Supreme Court were denied. He has filed a number of habeas petitions in all three

levels of the state courts, and all of the petitions were denied. 

ANALYSIS

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

Case 3:16-cv-01976-WHA Document 13 Filed 07/14/16 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

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 Section 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)).

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Petitioner claims: (1) that his sentence violates his right to due process because it is

“illegal” under California law; (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (3) he

received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; and (3) the prosecutor committed

misconduct in violation of his right to due process. When liberally construed, these claim

warrant a response. 

Petitioner has also filed a motion for a stay and abeyance to allow him to exhaust his

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and “statutory violations of due process.” It is not

clear what is meant by the latter, but it presumably refers to his claim that his sentence violates

due process because it is not authorized under certain statutes in the California Penal Code. In

order to obtain a stay, petitioner is required to show that the unexhausted claims are potentially

meritorious and to show cause for his failure to exhaust his claims in the state courts before he

filed the instant federal petition. See Rhines v. Webber 544 U.S. 269, 278-79 (2005). He has not

explained why he did not exhaust his claims prior to filing the instant petition, let alone shown

cause therefor. Accordingly, he is not entitled to a stay at this time. Petitioner may renew his

motion for a stay within 28 days of the date this order is filed provided that in doing so he shows

good cause for not rasing his claims in the state courts before filing the instant petition.

CONCLUSION

1. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the

respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The

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

Case 3:16-cv-01976-WHA Document 13 Filed 07/14/16 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. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty-three (63)

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 based on the claim found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and

serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state prison disciplinary proceedings 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 twenty-eight days of the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within sixty-three (63) days, 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

twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and

serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of the date any 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. 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).

5. The motion for a stay is DENIED without prejudice to filing another such motion

within 28 days of the date this order is filed in which he makes the good cause showing required

by Rhines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14 , 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-01976-WHA Document 13 Filed 07/14/16 Page 3 of 3