Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-02203/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-02203-0/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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\9.6.2007\02-02203 White2203_osc.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL LEE WHITE,

Petitioner,

v.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-02203 JW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docket Nos. 16 & 17)

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the California State Prison

in Vacaville, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. Petitioner seeks to proceed in

forma pauperis (Docket No. 17) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of the State of

California in and for the County of Santa Clara of selling cocaine base to an

undercover officer. The trial court imposed sentence enhancements under

Case 5:02-cv-02203-JW Document 20 Filed 09/06/07 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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\9.6.2007\02-02203 White2203_osc.wpd 2

California’s “Three Strikes” law after finding petitioner had prior felony

convictions. Petitioner was sentenced to twenty-five years to life in state prison. 

On May 7, 2002, petitioner filed a federal habeas petition which was

dismissed for containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (mixed petition – one containing both exhausted

and unexhausted claims – must be dismissed without prejudice). Petitioner was

granted leave to file an amended petition containing only exhausted claims, or

request a stay of the action while he returns to state court to exhaust the unexhausted

claims. Petitioner opted for the latter course, and the Court granted the motion for

stay. Petitioner filed the instant amended petition on September 19, 2006, and

alleges all claims therein have been exhausted in state court. The amended petition

is now before the Court for initial review. 

 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a 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). 

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.” Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner raises four claims: 1) the trial court violated due process by abusing

its discretion in failing to strike petitioner’s prior serious felony convictions; 2) the

trial court abused its discretion by denying petitioner’s right to retained counsel in

Case 5:02-cv-02203-JW Document 20 Filed 09/06/07 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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\9.6.2007\02-02203 White2203_osc.wpd 3

violation of the Sixth Amendment; 3) petitioner was denied his right to affective

assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment; and 4) appellate counsel

rendered ineffective assistance in violation of petitioner’s rights under the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims appear cognizable

under § 2254 and merits an answer from respondent. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 17) is 

DENIED as moot. Petitioner has already paid the filing fee. The clerk shall

terminate Docket Nos. 16 and 17 as moot. 

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

petition and all attachments thereto on respondent and respondent’s attorney, the

Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this

order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

ninety (90) 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 issued. 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 forty-five (45) days of

his receipt of the answer. 

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu

Case 5:02-cv-02203-JW Document 20 Filed 09/06/07 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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\9.6.2007\02-02203 White2203_osc.wpd 4

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 nonopposition within thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file

with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of

any opposition.

5. 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 also keep the court and all parties informed of any change 

of address. 

DATED: August 31, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:02-cv-02203-JW Document 20 Filed 09/06/07 Page 4 of 4