Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04672/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04672-1/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 Eastern 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

1

Petitioner erroneously named The People of the State of California as the respondent. The

appropriate respondent in a habeas action is the person who has custody of a petitioner. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2242. Here, that person is Vincent Cullen, Warden of San Quentin State Prison. Accordingly, the

Court amends the petition to name Cullen as the respondent. See Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 2242.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION

LAMOS WAYNE STURGIS,

Petitioner,

v.

VINCENT CULLEN, Warden of California State

Prison at San Quentin,1

Respondent.

 _____________________________/

No. C 08-04672 SBA (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Lamos Wayne Sturgis, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set forth below, a writ is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND

On December 6, 2007, Sturgis was arrested for violating conditions of parole. Pet’r’s P. &

A. at 4, 9; Pet’r’s Ex. D. He was placed in the custody of the Contra Costa Detention Facility.1

Case 4:08-cv-04672-SBA Document 22 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Eastern 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

On December 10, 2007, petitioner filed a grievance with jail authorities complaining that a

correctional officer had refused to file a Cal. Penal Code § 1381 Notice and Demand for Trial on

charges stemming from his arrest, namely of theft and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Cal.

Veh. Code § 10851(a), and reckless driving while fleeing a police officer (Cal. Veh. Code §

2800.2(a)). Pet’r’s P. & A. at 4. Cal. Penal Code § 1381 provides that within ninety days after

demand by a defendant, any pending charge against him must be brought to trial or be dismissed. In

his grievance, petitioner noted that he was being held on a “state parole hold,” and that the refusal to

file the § 1381 Notice was “a clear violation of [his] right to request state and county charges and

time to run concurrent.” Pet’r’s Ex. D. The correctional officer who was subject of the grievance

responded: “No booking # & not grievable offense, form turned into operations, they stated inmate

is not sentenced.” Id. On December 11, 2007, petitioner appealed the denial of the grievance, but

received no response from prison authorities. Id.

On December 17, 2007, petitioner submitted to the Contra Costa Detention Facility’s “Holds,

Warrants and Detainers” staff a request for any information pertaining to any pending holds or

warrants. Pet’r’s Ex. E. He was subsequently informed that “[a]t this time, you show no holds,

warrants or detainers.” Id.

On December 21, 2007, petitioner’s parole was revoked. Pet’r’s Ex. C. He was ordered to

return to state custody for eleven months. Id. Before being transferred to state prison, petitioner

submitted another request to jail authorities for information on any pending holds or warrants. 

Pet’r’s Ex. G. 

On January 11, 2008, petitioner again attempted to have detention facility staff file a Cal.

Penal Code § 1381 Notice, but received no response from the authorities. Pet’r’s Ex. F. 

On February 8, 2008, a staff member responded to his request for information, stating “[y]ou

show no holds, warrants or detainers at this time.” Pet’r’s Ex. G.

On April 23, 2008, petitioner received notification that the Richmond Police 

Department had filed a detainer against him on April 22, 2008, on charges of theft and unlawful

driving or taking of a vehicle, as well as reckless driving while fleeing a police officer, which led to

his arrest on December 6, 2007. Pet’r’s Ex. A. Citing a “Warrant Abstract,” Pet’r’s Ex. B,

Case 4:08-cv-04672-SBA Document 22 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Eastern 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

petitioner contends that the warrant for his arrest was issued on December 8, 2007, and that charges

were filed on December 19, 2007.

Petitioner was arraigned on the above charges, as well as a charge of resisting a police

officer, on May 29, 2008. Supp. Pet. Attach. Petitioner was offered a plea bargain pursuant to

which in exchange for pleading guilty to Cal. Veh. Code § 10851(a) and Cal. Penal Code § 69, he

would be sentenced to three years in state prison, and any enhancements that would prevent him

from receiving a “50% good time credit” would be struck. Supp. Pet., Zambrana Decl. Petitioner

contends that before he had a chance to consider the plea offer, his attorney withdrew from his case

due to a conflict. He states that the prosecutor then vindictively sought a grand jury indictment,

added extra charges as well as a three-strike enhancement. He then offered him “13 year 85%

oppose [sic] to 3 years with half time serve.” Supp. Pet.

After filing several state habeas petitions, all of which were denied, petitioner filed the

instant federal habeas petition on October 9, 2008. He filed a supplemental petition on December 3,

2008. Respondent filed an answer on August 14, 2009. Petitioner filed a traverse on October 1,

2009.

LEGAL STANDARD

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); Rose v.

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court may not grant a petition challenging a state conviction or sentence on the

basis of a claim that was reviewed on the merits in state court unless the state court’s adjudication of

the claim: “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application

of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2)

resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the

evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor, 529

U.S. 362, 412–13 (2000). If the state court did not reach the merits of a claim, federal review of the

Case 4:08-cv-04672-SBA Document 22 Filed 07/14/10 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Eastern 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

claim is de novo. Nulph v. Cook, 333 F.3d 1052, 1057 (9th Cir. 2003).

A federal court must presume the correctness of the state court’s factual findings. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). The state court decision implicated by 2254(d) is the “last reasoned decision”

of the state court. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803–04 (1991); Barker v. Fleming, 423

F.3d 1085, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2005).

Habeas relief is warranted only if the constitutional error at issue had a “‘substantial and

injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’” Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782,

796 (2001).

ANALYSIS

A. Claim 1

Petitioner contends that by failing to file his Cal. Penal Code § 1381 Notice and Demand for

Trial, jail authorities denied him his rights to due process and a speedy trial. Petitioner cites state

law in support of his claim. Pet’r’s P. & A. at 5-6.

To the extent that petitioner articulates only a violation of state law, his claim is not

cognizable on federal habeas. A person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court can

obtain a federal writ of habeas corpus 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). In other words, a writ of

habeas corpus is available under § 2254(a) "only on the basis of some transgression of federal law

binding on the state courts." Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle

v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)), cert denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). It is unavailable for

violations of state law or for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. Estelle v.

McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Here, petitioner’s claim raises issues solely of state law and

must be denied.

Even if petitioner had properly articulated a violation of his federal constitutional rights, he

still would not be entitled to relief. A speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed the accused by

the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment on the states. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 223 (1967). The right to a

Case 4:08-cv-04672-SBA Document 22 Filed 07/14/10 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Eastern 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

5

speedy trial however, does not attach until a defendant has been “indicted, arrested, or otherwise

officially accused” in the course of a criminal prosecution. United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1,

6 (1982). Here, petitioner was arrested for violating conditions of parole, not on the charges that

were later brought against him. Because no criminal prosecution appears to have been instituted

against petitioner at the time that the jail authorities allegedly refused to file his § 1381 Notice, such

refusal could not have violated petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.

Furthermore, even assuming that the warrant abstract cited by petitioner, Pet’r’s Ex. B,

establishes the institution of a criminal proceeding, petitioner fails to establish a violation of his right

to a speedy trial. In order to determine whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated, courts

must apply a flexible "functional analysis," Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 522 (1972), and weigh

the following factors: (1) length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant's

assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647,

651 (1992); Barker, 407 U.S. at 530; United States v. Lam, 251 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir.), amended,

262 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2001). Petitioner fails to demonstrate that these factors, as applied to his

case, establish a violation of his right to a speedy trial.

Finally, jail authorities did not violate petitioner’s due process rights under the Fifth

Amendment. In order to establish that pre-indictment delay has risen to the level of a denial of due

process, a petitioner must demonstrate actual prejudice from the delay; only if actual prejudice is

shown must the reasons for and length of the delay be balanced against such prejudice. United

States v. Moran, 759 F.2d 777, 780-781 (9th Cir. 1085). Petitioner does not allege that he has

suffered any prejudice from the actions of the jail authorities. Rather, he states that he need not

establish prejudice under California law. Pet’r’s P. & A. at 7. Petitioner fails to establish a due

process violation.

The state court reasonably denied petitioner’s claim. Accordingly, petitioner’s claim is

denied.

B. Claims 2 and 3

In claim 2, petitioner alleges that he is entitled to the dismissal of his case because he was not

brought to trial within the statutory period set forth in Cal. Penal Code § 1382(2). In claim 3,

Case 4:08-cv-04672-SBA Document 22 Filed 07/14/10 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Eastern 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

6

petitioner alleges that he is not required by state law to show prejudice in order to obtain relief. 

Because petitioner articulates only violations of state law, his claims are not cognizable on federal

habeas and must be denied. See Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68.

C. Claim 4

In his supplemental petition, petitioner alleges that the prosecutor engaged in vindictive

prosecution. He claims that before his preliminary hearing, the prosecutor offered him a plea

bargain. Before petitioner could accept the deal however, his attorney withdrew from his case due to

a conflict. The prosecutor then decided to proceed with a grand jury indictment, and added

additional charges and enhancements. The prosecutor subsequently offered a less generous plea

bargain.

As respondent correctly points out, petitioner has not properly exhausted this claim as it

appears that it was never raised in state court. An unexhausted claim may, however, be denied on

the merits. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).

The only authority petitioner cites in support of his claim is Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21

(1974). In Blackledge, the prosecutor charged the defendant with a felony after the defendant

appealed his misdemeanor conviction. The Supreme Court held that it was not constitutionally

permissible for the state to respond to the defendant’s invocation of his statutory right to appeal by

bringing a more serious charge against him. Id. at 28. Here, petitioner does not allege that the

prosecutor was retaliating against him for exercising a statutory right, nor does he allege a lack of

legal or factual basis for the added charges. Rather, he simply states that the prosecutor filed more

charges against him and offered him a less generous plea bargain than the one originally offered. 

The exercise of such discretion during the plea bargaining process however, does not violate due

process. See Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 362-365 (1978).

For the above-mentioned reasons, petitioner’s claim lacks merit and is denied.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The Clerk of

the Court shall enter judgment and close the file.

Case 4:08-cv-04672-SBA Document 22 Filed 07/14/10 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Eastern 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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.08\Sturgis4672.denyHC.wpd7

Furthermore, no certificate of appealability is warranted in this case. Petitioner has failed to

make a substantial showing that any of his claims amounted to a denial of his constitutional rights or

demonstrate that a reasonable jurist would find this Court’s denial of his claims debatable or wrong. 

See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Therefore, a certificate of appealability is

DENIED. See Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (requiring

district court to rule on certificate of appealability in same order that denies petition). Petitioner may

not appeal the denial of a certificate of appealability in this Court but may seek a certificate from the

Ninth Circuit under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 7/12/10

___________________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge 

Case 4:08-cv-04672-SBA Document 22 Filed 07/14/10 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Eastern 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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.08\Sturgis4672.denyHC.wpd8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMOS WAYNE STURGIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et

al,

Defendant.

 /

Case Number: CV08-04672 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 14, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Lamos Wayne Sturgis F-28185

California Men’s Colony State Prison

P.O. Box 8101

San Luis Obispo, CA 93409-8101

Dated: July 14, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:08-cv-04672-SBA Document 22 Filed 07/14/10 Page 8 of 8