Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00235/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00235-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.08\Rider235osc 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE RIDER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-0235 RMW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The court orders

respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, a San Mateo Superior Court jury convicted petitioner of

failing to register as a sex offender (Cal. Penal Code § 290). After a court trial, the

superior court found that petitioner had a prior “strike” conviction pursuant to

California’s “three strikes” law (Cal. Penal Code § 1170.12). Petitioner was sentenced to

twenty-five years-to-life in state prison and is currently serving his sentence at the

Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California. On direct appeal, the state appellate

court affirmed the judgment in 2003. The state supreme court granted the petition for

review, deferred further action pending a decision in another case and then transferred the

*E-FILED - 4/29/08*

Case 5:08-cv-00235-RMW Document 2 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 4
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

Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.08\Rider235osc 2

case back to the state appellate court. Again, the state appellate court affirmed the

judgment. The state supreme court again granted a petition for review and transferred the

case back to the appellate court with directions to vacate the appellate court’s opinion. 

Thereafter, the appellate court affirmed the judgment on June 28, 2006. Petition, Exhibit

A. The state supreme court denied a petition for review on October 18, 2006. Id., Exhibit

B. The instant federal petition was filed on January 14, 2008. 

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). 

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. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief petitioner asserts that: (1) he was denied his

rights to due process, to present a defense, to call witnesses in his own behalf, to present

all relevant evidence, and to a jury trial where the trial court totally excluded expert

opinion evidence as to petitioner’s limited intelligence and ability to remember his duty to

register as a sex offender; (2) he was denied his rights to due process and to a jury trial by

the court’s instruction that, if petitioner had knowledge of the duty to register, then his

failure to register was willful, which had the effect of directing a verdict as to the

wilfulness element and operated as a mandatory presumption; (3) his rights to present a

defense and to a jury trial were violated by the trial court’s instructions to the effect that

“ignorance of the law is not an excuse;” and (4) his sentence of twenty-five years-to-life

was cruel and unusual and disproportionate punishment forbidden by the United States

Constitution. 

Case 5:08-cv-00235-RMW Document 2 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 4
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

Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.08\Rider235osc 3

Liberally construed, petitioner’s allegations are sufficient to require a response. The court

orders respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition (docket 

no. 1) and all attachments thereto upon the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the

Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order

on the petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty

days of the date of receipt of this order and the petition, 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 underlying state criminal 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 his receipt of the

answer.

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of

an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases within sixty days of the date of receipt of this order. 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 fifteen days

of receipt of any opposition.

4. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded

that all communications with the court must be served on respondent by mailing a true

copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. 

///

Case 5:08-cv-00235-RMW Document 2 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 4
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

Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.08\Rider235osc 4

Petitioner must keep the court and all parties informed of any change of address by filing

a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

4/28/08

Case 5:08-cv-00235-RMW Document 2 Filed 04/29/08 Page 4 of 4