Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05243/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05243-0/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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMMED HAROON ALI,

Petitioner, No. C-05-5243 PJH

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, Director, 

California Department of Corrections

Respondent.

_______________________________/

Petitioner Mohammed Haroon Ali (“Ali”), a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND

In 2001, Ali was convicted of first degree murder by a jury in the California Superior

Court, County of San Mateo. Ali had been convicted of two prior felonies, and at the time

of his murder conviction, he was on probation for aggravated kidnapping.

At a hearing on May 5, 2001, the trial court found that the allegations regarding his

prior offenses were true, that one of them constituted a “strike,” and that Ali had violated his

probation. On August 13, 2001, Ali was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of fifty-five

years to life in prison. In addition, the trial court revoked Ali’s probation and reimposed the

nine-year sentence for his prior conviction. 

The California Court of Appeal denied Ali’s appeal of his conviction on January 30,

2004. The California Court of Appeal also denied Ali’s original petition for writ of habeas

corpus on January 30, 2004. The California Supreme Court denied Ali’s petition for review

of his conviction on May 12, 2004, and denied his petition for habeas corpus on January

19, 2005. Ali filed the instant federal habeas petition on December 19, 2005. 

Case 4:05-cv-05243-PJH Document 2 Filed 02/22/06 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

DISCUSSION 

A. Legal Standard

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 on the Constitution or law or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(a). It 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. 

B. Petitioner’s Legal Claims

Ali seeks federal habeas corpus relief, raising five claims: 1) that he was denied due

process of the law, equal protection under the law, and a fair jury trial under the Fifth, Sixth,

and Fourteenth Amendments when the trial court applied the wrong test in determining the

propriety of the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges; 2) that he was deprived of effective

assistance of counsel under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments when the special

instruction given by the trial court to the jury erroneously defined the elements of voluntary

manslaughter in a way that made it impossible for the jury to find that the petitioner had

committed a lesser crime and effectively relieved the prosecution of meeting its burden of

proof; 3) that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the Fifth, Sixth,

and Fourteenth Amendments when his trial counsel failed to object to the special

instruction regarding the elements of voluntary manslaughter; 4) that he was deprived of

due process and a fair jury trial under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments when

the trial court permitted the prosecution to introduce highly prejudicial evidence that had no

substantial probative value other than as “propensity” evidence; and 5) that he was

deprived of effective assistance of counsel under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth

Amendments when the pattern instructions regarding the use of propensity evidence

allowed the jury to convict him of the charged crime even if the prosecution did not meet its

burden of proof. Ali also conditionally requests that an evidentiary hearing be held in this

case. 

Case 4:05-cv-05243-PJH Document 2 Filed 02/22/06 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

Liberally construed, the claims appear colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and merit

an answer from respondent. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown

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

all attachments thereto upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order

on petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with this court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days 

of the date 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

issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions

of the administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by

the petition. 

3. If the 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 his receipt of the

answer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2006

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-05243-PJH Document 2 Filed 02/22/06 Page 3 of 3