Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03924/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03924-0/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)

---

U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

UNIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONTE CORMIER, 

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden, High Desert

State Prison, Susanville, 

 Respondent.

_____________________________________/

No. C 05-3924 MHP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner Donte Cormier is currently a prisoner of the State of California incarcerated at

High Desert State Prison. Petitioner brings this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. section 2254 to challenge his conviction for second degree murder with associated

firearms enhancements in violation of California Penal Code sections 187 and 12022.53(d). 

Jurisdiction to address a petition for writ of habeas corpus exists in the district of

incarceration and in the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Although venue is therefore

proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction, traditionally California

federal courts hear petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the district of conviction. Laue v. Nelson,

279 F. Supp. 265 (N.D. Cal. 1968) (Weigel, J.). Venue lies in this district because petitioner was

convicted in Alameda County Superior Court. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder with associated firearms enhancements in

violation of California Penal Code sections 187 and 12022.53(d). Following his conviction,

Case 3:05-cv-03924-MHP Document 2 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 4
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

petitioner was sentenced in the Alameda County Superior Court to forty years to life imprisonment. 

Petitioner alleges that his fifth amendment due process rights and sixth amendment right to effective

assistance of counsel have been violated. Specifically, petitioner raises four claims. First, petitioner

contends that the trial court’s exclusion of evidence of the victim’s prior criminal convictions

deprived petitioner of his due process right to present a defense – imperfect self-defense. Second,

petitioner claims that trial counsel’s failure to locate or subpoena two witnesses deprived him of his

sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and of his fifth amendment right to due

process. Third, petitioner claims that trial counsel’s failure to argue imperfect self-defense in closing

argument constituted a deprivation of his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel

and of his fifth amendment right to due process. Fourth, petitioner claims that the cumulative effect

of multiple errors produced a denial of due process.

LEGAL STANDARD

A district 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 of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The purpose of the writ of

habeas corpus is to “protect[] individuals from unconstitutional convictions and . . . to guarantee the

integrity of the criminal process by assuring that trials are fundamentally fair.” O’Neal v.

McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 442 (1995); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson 507 U.S. 619, 633–34 (1993). 

A district court 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. A district court may summarily dismiss a habeas

petition where “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th

Cir. 1990) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 4). Summary dismissal is appropriate only when the

allegations in the petition are vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, patently frivolous, or false. See

id. 

Case 3:05-cv-03924-MHP Document 2 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 4
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

DISCUSSION

Petitioner raises four claims in support of his argument that he is in custody in violation of

the Constitution of the United States. First, petitioner contends that the trial court’s exclusion of

evidence of the victim’s prior criminal convictions deprived him of his due process right to present a

defense. In particular, petitioner claims that evidence of a prior conviction involving firearms would

have supported petitioner’s claim that he actually feared harm, which is an element of self-defense,

or in the alternative, imperfect self-defense. Second, petitioner claims that trial counsel’s failure to

locate or subpoena two witnesses deprived him of his sixth amendment right to effective assistance

of counsel and his fifth amendment right to due process. According to petitioner, these witnesses

would have supported his version of events. Third, petitioner claims that trial counsel’s failure to

argue imperfect self-defense during closing arguments constituted a deprivation of his sixth

amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and his fifth amendment right to due process. 

Fourth, petitioner claims that the cumulative effect of multiple errors produced a denial of due

process.

On the basis of the record before the court, which at this time consists only of the petition

itself, petitioner’s allegations do not appear vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, patently

frivolous, or false. See Hendricks, 908 F.2d at 491. Thus, the court finds that petitioner has stated

cognizable claims for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the petition, the court hereby FINDS and ORDERS THAT:

(1) Petitioner’s claims for relief state cognizable claims for federal habeas relief;

(2) The clerk of this court SHALL, by certified mail:

(a) serve a copy of this Order and a copy of petitioner’s petition upon the Attorney

General of the State of California; and,

(b) serve a copy of this Order upon petitioner and petitioner’s attorneys;

Case 3:05-cv-03924-MHP Document 2 Filed 11/16/05 Page 3 of 4
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

4

UNIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

For the Northern District of California

(3) Pursuant to Habeas Local Rule 2254-6, respondent shall file an answer or other

pleading with this court within sixty (60) days of the date of this order. This answer or other

pleading must conform in all respects to 28 U.S.C. section 2254, Rule 5, and SHOW CAUSE why a

writ of habeas corpus should not issue. Respondent shall file with the answer or other pleading a

copy of all portions of the trial record that have been previously transcribed and that are relevant to a

determination of the issues presented in the petition;

(4) Pursuant to Habeas Local Rule 2254-6, petitioner shall respond to the answer or other

pleading by filing a traverse with the court and serving it upon respondent within thirty (30) days

after he receives the answer;

(5) This matter shall be deemed submitted as of the date petitioner’s traverse is due. No

hearing will be held unless the Court so orders at a later date.

 IT IS SO ORDERED

Date: November 16, 2005

_______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:05-cv-03924-MHP Document 2 Filed 11/16/05 Page 4 of 4