Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04630/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04630-0/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CECIL SAGAPOLU,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES ROBERTSON, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-04630-HSG (PR) 

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a California inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking 

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. 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 in the United States District Courts.1 

BACKGROUND

According the petition, Petitioner was convicted in 2012 by an Alameda County jury of 

second degree murder and illegal possession of a firearm by a felon, with an enhancement for 

personal firearm use. He was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison. In 2014, the California 

Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, and in 2014, the California Supreme Court denied 

review. Petitioner file unsuccessful habeas petitions in the state superior, appellate, and supreme 

courts. The instant action was filed on July 31, 2018.

 

1 Petitioner initially named Scott Kernan as the respondent in this action. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus 

Cases Under Section 2254, James Robertson, the warden of the Pelican Bay State Prison, where 

Petitioner is incarcerated, is hereby SUBSTITUTED as Respondent in place of the previously 

named respondent.

Case 4:18-cv-04630-HSG Document 6 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

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). 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. 

B. Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner makes the following claims, which the 

Court has renumbered: (1) admission into evidence of Petitioner’s police interview violated his

rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Petitioner’s claim 8); (2) the trial court 

erred by failing to correctly instruct the jury on causation, the absence of provocation as an 

element of murder, and voluntary manslaughter (Petitioner’s claim 9); (3) the trial court erred in 

permitting the jury to have access to contents of petitioner’s cell phone records that were not in 

evidence (Petitioner’s claim 10); (4) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to seek 

suppression of petitioner’s police interview pursuant to Miranda (Petitioner’s claim 1); (5) trial 

counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call an expert witness on the impact of 

methamphetamine use (Petitioner’s claim 2); (6) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by 

failing to ensure the jury was properly instructed on causation (Petitioner’s claim 3); (7) trial 

counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to seek to prevent the jury from having access to 

petitioner’s cell phone records during jury deliberations (Petitioner’s claim 4); (8) trial counsel 

rendered ineffective assistance by failing to ensure the jury was properly instructed on the absence 

of provocation as an element of murder under California law and by failing to request an 

instruction on voluntary manslaughter (Petitioner’s claim 5); (9) the above errors, in combination 

with counsel’s other errors, cumulatively deprived petitioner of his Sixth Amendment right to 

effective assistance of counsel (Petitioner’s claim 6); (10) appellate counsel rendered ineffective 

Case 4:18-cv-04630-HSG Document 6 Filed 10/29/18 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

assistance for failing to raise the above claims on appeal (Petitioner’s claim 7); and (11) the above 

errors resulted in cumulative prejudice (Petitioner’s claim 11). 

There is a problem with Petitioner’s first cumulative error claim (Claim 9). Specifically, 

petitioner asserts cumulative error based not only on the alleged errors of trial counsel stated in 

Claims 4-8 but also on an additional four alleged errors, which he describes as: 

“(a) trial counsel’s failure to object when the prosecutor blatantly misdefined ‘implied 

malice second degree murder’ during the prosecutor’s summation; (b) trial counsel failed 

to object to a spate of prejudicial but irrelevant evidence related to petitioner’s Acura; 

(c) trial counsel failed to competently seek the exclusion of evidence related to the criminal 

enterprises being conducted at Anthony Ross’ house and in the dwelling of Mr. Ross’ 

upstairs neighbor (Mr. Smothers), and this despite the complete irrelevance of the facts 

related to these people; and (d) counsel did not seek to exclude evidence that petitioner had 

been to prison and county jail previously on unspecified charges unrelated to this case.” 

Dkt. No. 1 at 7. Petitioner does not assert (a)-(d) as separate Sixth Amendment claims. Rather, he 

appears to ask that the Court assume the errors alleged in (a)-(d) for purposes of evaluating the 

cumulative error asserted in Claim 9. The Court will not do so. 

Petitioner will be afforded the opportunity to amend his petition to separately state Sixth 

Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims relating to the allegations in (a)-(d). He 

should note, however, that federal habeas petitioners are first required to exhaust state judicial 

remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state 

court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to 

raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). The 

exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of federal-state comity to give the state “the 

initial ‘opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.’” 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted). Only if the federal claim has been 

“fairly presented” to the state courts is the exhaustion requirement satisfied. Id.

In order to give the state the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal 

rights, the claims urged upon the state courts must be “the substantial equivalent” of those relied 

upon in the federal petition. Picard, 404 U.S. at 278. “[M]ere similarity of claims is insufficient 

to exhaust.” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 366 (1995). Constitutional claims are not fairly 

presented to the state courts and therefore are not exhausted if, for example, the claims in the 

Case 4:18-cv-04630-HSG Document 6 Filed 10/29/18 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

federal petition and those presented to the state courts (1) arose under different federal 

constitutional provisions (including different clauses in the same constitutional amendment, e.g., 

the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment), see Brown v. Cuyler, 669 

F.2d 155, 159 (3d Cir. 1982), (2) arose under the same constitutional provision but are logically 

distinct or are based on different and unrelated lines of precedent, see Anderson v. Harless, 459 

U.S. 4, 6 (1982); Poyson v. Ryan, 879 F.3d 875, 896 (9th Cir. 2018) (new allegations and evidence 

presented to federal court on IAC claim fundamentally altered the previously exhausted IAC 

claim); or (3) one claim relied on state law while the other relied on federal law, even if the state 

and federal provisions and standards are similar, see Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1159-61 

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); but see Sanders v. Ryder, 342 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 2003) (Peterson

makes it clear that, depending on context of the claim, a prisoner may alert a state court to the 

federal nature of the asserted right by using the phrase “ineffective assistance of counsel” even 

though he does not cite federal constitution or federal case law in his petition).

If he has a claim he wishes this Court to consider, but that has not yet been presented to the 

California Supreme Court, Petitioner may file a motion for a stay and abeyance at the time he files 

his amended petition. If that motion is granted, the Court will stay the federal proceedings and 

hold the amended petition in abeyance until Petitioner exhausts the unexhausted claim. In his 

motion for stay and abeyance, Petitioner should identify each currently unexhausted claim that he 

intends to exhaust and explain why he has not yet presented it to the California Supreme Court to 

exhaust state court remedies for it. In preparing such a motion, he should bear in mind that a stay 

and abeyance “is only appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for the 

petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state court,” the claims are not meritless, and there 

are no intentionally dilatory litigation tactics by the petitioner. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 

277-78 (2005).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend within thirty (30) days from the 

date this order is entered. The amendment must be on the court’s form for prisoner Section 2254 

Case 4:18-cv-04630-HSG Document 6 Filed 10/29/18 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

petitions and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 18-4630 HSG 

(PR)) and the words “AMENDED PETITION” on the first page. The amended petition will 

supersede any prior filings, and Petitioner is reminded that the amended petition must contain all 

claims he wishes to pursue and may not incorporate by reference any parts of the original petition. 

See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

If Petitioner does not wish to file an amended petition, he shall so inform the Court within 

thirty (30) days from the date of this order. If Petitioner fails to file an amended petition, the 

Court will enter an order to show cause directing Respondent to file an Answer on Claims 1-

11 but disregarding the errors alleged in (a)-(d).

2. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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).

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send Petitioner a blank habeas corpus form along with 

a copy of this Order.

4. Additionally, the Clerk is directed to substitute Warden James Robertson on the 

docket as the respondent in this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

10/29/2018

Case 4:18-cv-04630-HSG Document 6 Filed 10/29/18 Page 5 of 5