Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04802/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04802-0/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)

---

United States District Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOROMI RADEL WASHINGTON,

Petitioner, 

 v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-4802 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitions in the case have twice

been dismissed because petitioner did not clearly set out his claims. Petitioner has now filed a

second amended petition in response to the latest dismissal with leave to amend.

 STATEMENT

Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of committing a lewd and lascivious act

on a child under the age of fourteen, see Cal. Penal Code § 288(a), and admitted that he had

suffered a prior conviction for a "strike" offense, see Cal. Penal Code § 667(b)-(i), 1170.12, and

a prior serious felony conviction, see Cal. Penal Code § 667(a). He was sentenced to prison for

an agreed term of seventeen years. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the

California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Petitioner has

also filed state habeas petitions.

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-04802-WHA Document 38 Filed 04/04/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

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

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); Rose

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not

sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of

constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient

are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d

1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. CLAIMS

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) he received ineffective

assistance of defense counsel; (2) the prosecution engaged in misconduct; and (3) his appellate

counsel was ineffective. 

As to issue one, he contends that counsel failed to contact witnesses he had suggested

could offer an alibi, did not investigate the medical and psychological evaluation of the victim,

and did not prepare for trial, for instance by interviewing expert witnesses. This is sufficient to

proceed. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985) (discussing claims of ineffective

assistance for failure to investigate pre-plea; prejudice turns on whether proper investigation

would have resulted in different advice re plea). 

Petitioner’s second issue is that his due process rights were violated by prosecutorial

misconduct. First, petitioner says that the prosecutor conferred with defense counsel and the

Case 3:06-cv-04802-WHA Document 38 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

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

1 People v. Wende, 25 Cal. 3d 436 (1979). Under it, counsel, upon concluding that an

appeal would be frivolous, files a brief with the appellate court that summarizes the

procedural and factual history of the case. Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 265 (2000)

(summarizing Wende procedure). Counsel does not explicitly state that an appeal would be

frivolous, though that is implicit. Id. Counsel must attest that he or she has: reviewed the

record, explained counsel’s evaluation of the case to the client, provided the client with a

copy of the brief, and informed the client of the client’s right to file a pro se supplemental

brief. Id. Counsel further asks that the appellate court independently examine the record for

arguable issues. Id. The appellate court, upon receiving a "Wende brief," conducts a review

of the entire record and affirms if it finds the appeal to be frivolous. Id. at 265-66. If,

however, it finds an arguable (i.e., nonfrivolous) issue, it orders briefing on that issue. Id. at

266.

3

judge in chambers. This is not misconduct. He then asserts that although defense counsel knew

he was taking anti-depressants, he was given only ten or fifteen minutes to decide whether to

take the offered deal. He does not say who gave him the allegedly-inadequate time, and does

not link the prosecutor to this, so this could not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. He also

contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct at the preliminary hearing, but a defendant

who pleads guilty cannot later raise in habeas corpus proceedings independent claims relating to

the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred before the plea of guilty. See Haring v.

Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 319-20 (1983) (guilty plea forecloses consideration of pre-plea

constitutional deprivations). The plea also waived any claim that the prosecution failed to turn

over exculpatory evidence. See United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 631-32 (U.S. 2002).

Finally, petitioner’s contention that the prosecutor violated “Fed. Rules Evid. Rule 404(A) 28

U.S.C.A.” by maliciously prosecuting him is not grounds for habeas relief, as the federal rules

of evidence apply only in federal court. Petitioner has failed to state a basis for habeas relief in

this claim, and because he has been afforded two previous amendments, this claim will be

dismissed without further leave to amend.

In his third claim petitioner claims his appellate counsel was ineffective in filing a

Wende1

 brief. This claim is sufficient to proceed.

CONCLUSION 

1. Claim two is DISMISSED. 

2. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the

respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The

Case 3:06-cv-04802-WHA Document 38 Filed 04/04/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

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

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

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of

service of this order, 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 granted. 

Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state

trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the

issues presented by the petition. 

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the

court and serving it on respondent within thirty days of service of the answer.

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer,

as set forth in Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a

motion, petitioner shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of

non-opposition within thirty days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the

court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of receipt of any opposition.

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

respondent by mailing a copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Papers intended to be

filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk rather than to the undersigned. Petitioner also

must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk

headed “Notice of Change of Address,” and comply with any orders of the court within the time

allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. 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). See Martinez

v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.06\WASHINGTON802.OSC3.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-04802-WHA Document 38 Filed 04/04/08 Page 4 of 4