Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04490/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04490-0/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

JAMES WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,

v.

D. OLLISON, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-4490 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

James Washington, currently incarcerated at Ironwood State Prison, filed this pro se

action seeking 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 motion for appointment of counsel also is now before the court for

consideration.

BACKGROUND

Washington reports in his petition that he was convicted in the Alameda County Superior

Court of being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm. He states that he was sentenced in July

2001 to a prison term of 25 years to life plus three one-year enhancements. He appealed. The

California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction and the California Supreme Court denied his

petition for review. He also filed unsuccessful state habeas petitions. 

Case 3:06-cv-04490-SI Document 4 Filed 08/15/06 Page 1 of 6
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

Washington's first federal habeas petition, Washington v. Hall, No. C 05-4139 SI, was

dismissed without prejudice because he had not exhausted state court remedies. He reports that

he has now exhausted state court remedies.

DISCUSSION

A. Review Of Petition

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 incorporates by reference the petition for review and original habeas petition

filed by Washington in the California Supreme Court, which include the following claims: (1)

Washington was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when his

attorney failed to object to certain evidence and failed to seek any limiting instructions (Petition

for Review, pp. 3-22), (2) Washington was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective

assistance of counsel and his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict when counsel failed to

request a unanimity instruction and the court failed to give the instruction sua sponte (id. at 22-

23), (3) Washington was denied his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel and

to have the jury determine all elements beyond a reasonable doubt because of the instruction on

intent to possess (id. at 24-28), (4) Washington was denied effective assistance of counsel when

counsel failed to object to opinion testimony (id. at 28-30, and Petition For Writ of Habeas

Corpus in California Supreme Court,, pp. 6-10), (5) Washington's sentence amounted to cruel

Case 3:06-cv-04490-SI Document 4 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 6
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

and unusual punishment (Petition For Review, p. 30 and Federal Habeas Petition, pp. 14-19).

 Liberally construed, the claims are cognizable in a federal habeas action and warrant a response

from respondents. These claims are the same ones asserted in Washington's 2005 federal

petition.

Washington has added some new claims that apparently were included in a later habeas

petition filed in the California Supreme Court. His first new claim is that his sentence, because

it was based on prior convictions, violated his right to due process and to be free from double

jeopardy. This claim is dismissed. The use of prior convictions to enhance sentences for

subsequent convictions does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. See Spencer v. Texas, 385

U.S. 554, 560 (1967) (upholding use of prior convictions to enhance sentences for subsequent

convictions even if in a sense defendant must relitigate in sentencing proceeding conduct for

which he was already tried); Jackson v. Nelson, 435 F.2d 553, 553 (9th Cir. 1971) (dismissing

contentions of equal protection, bill of attainder, double jeopardy and ex post facto against

recidivist statute as meritless). Despite Washington's assertions to the contrary, his current

sentence is not based on his status or on his recidivism alone: he committed a new crime and but

for the conviction for the commission of that crime, would not have received any prison

sentence. The court also rejects his characterization of the sentencing enhancement under

California's Three Strikes Law as an element of an offense. See Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 243-44 (1998); United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 414-15

(9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 966 (2001) (Almendarez-Torres remains good law after

Apprendi and provides that prior convictions, whether or not admitted by the defendant on the

record, are sentencing factors rather than elements of the crime). To the extent Washington is

attempting to assert a substantive due process claim in addition to the double jeopardy claim, that

claim is rejected also. Where there exists an explicit textual source of constitutional protection

against a particular sort of government behavior -- such as the Eighth Amendment's clause

prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments -- that Amendment, not the more generalized notion

of "substantive due process," must be used to analyze such a claim. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S.

Case 3:06-cv-04490-SI Document 4 Filed 08/15/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

266, 273 (1994) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)). Furthermore, the double

jeopardy claim, being cobbled together from so many different lower federal and state court

cases and essentially asking this court to ignore the Supreme Court's decision in AlmendarezTorres, would not succeed in light of the requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) that habeas relief

be granted only if the state court's rejection of the claim is contrary to or an unreasonable

application of clearly established federal law as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Washington's next claim is that his right to due process was violated because the fact of

a prior conviction is a necessary element for his conviction for being a felon in possession of a

firearm and that was not submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He

appears to allege that two burglary priors were not submitted to a jury and it was not found

proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they were first degree burglaries that could count as

strikes for the Three Strikes Law. (Petition attachment, pp. 1B - 5B.) Liberally construed, these

allegations state a cognizable claim for habeas relief. 

Washington next claims that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective

assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence

used to prove that his 1983 and 1977 burglary convictions were serious felonies. (Petition

attachment, p. 1C - 4C.) Liberally construed, the allegation states a cognizable claim for habeas

relief. 

The court notes that petitioner's exhibit numbering and alpha-numeric page-numbering

scheme are unnecessarily confusing. In any further filings, petitioner should paginate his

documents with sequential numbers (i.e., so that the first page is numbered "1" and the second

page is numbered "2" etc.). He should not use a combination of letters and numbers and should

not separately number the pages of each claim such as apparently was done in the attachments

to the petition. Each document attached to any filing should be a separate exhibit.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-04490-SI Document 4 Filed 08/15/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

B. Motion For Appointment Of Counsel

Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A district

court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever "the court determines that

the interests of justice so require and such person is financially unable to obtain representation."

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the

district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S.

1023 (1987). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case

indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. Based

on the materials in the court file, it does not appear that appointment of counsel is required in

this action to prevent a due process violation. The motion for appointment of counsel is therefore

DENIED. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The claims that the sentence imposed violated petitioner's right to be free from

double jeopardy and right to due process are dismissed without leave to amend. The other

claims identified above are cognizable claims for habeas relief and warrant a response. 

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

attachments thereto upon respondents and respondents' attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California. The clerk shall also send a copy of this order to petitioner. 

3. Respondents must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before October 20, 2006,

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. Respondents 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 November 23, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-04490-SI Document 4 Filed 08/15/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. Petitioner must promptly inform

the court 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). Petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case

name and case number for this case on any document he submits to this court for consideration

in this case.

6. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 2.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 15, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04490-SI Document 4 Filed 08/15/06 Page 6 of 6