Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01580/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01580-0/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

JEFFREY WADE PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-1580 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Jeffrey Wade Patterson, formerly an inmate at Avenal State Prison, filed this pro se action

for 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 in forma pauperis application also is before the court.

BACKGROUND

Patterson states in his petition that he was convicted in Santa Clara County Superior

Court of possession for sale of methamphetamine and diazepam, see Cal. Health & Safety Code

§ 11375(b) and § 11378, and was found have suffered a prior prison term, see Cal. Penal Code

§ 667.5(b). He states that he was sentenced on April 7, 2006 to a term of three years in prison

and a fine of $1,200. He apparently appealed unsuccessfully and filed state habeas petitions

before filing this action.

Case 3:07-cv-01580-SI Document 7 Filed 09/04/07 Page 1 of 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

2

DISCUSSION

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 alleges that the fine imposed as part of Patterson's sentence was excessive.

The petition also alleges that the state court did not consider Patterson's ability to pay the fine

and that he is, in fact, unable to pay the fine. Liberally construed, the claim appears to be one

for a violation of Patterson's Eighth Amendment right not to be subject to excessive fines. See

U.S. Const. amend. VIII; see generally Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 610 (1993);

Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2000). Liberally construed, the claim is

cognizable in a federal habeas action and warrants a response. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states a cognizable claim for habeas relief and warrants a response.

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

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State

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

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before November 2, 2007,

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 must file with the

Case 3:07-cv-01580-SI Document 7 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 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

3

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 December 7, 2007.

5. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 2.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 4, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01580-SI Document 7 Filed 09/04/07 Page 3 of 3