Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01629/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01629-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAYLOR STEVEN LANGENDORF,

Petitioner,

 vs.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1629 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE,

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS, GRANTING

MOTION TO REQUEST

TRANSCRIPTS

(Docket nos. 4, 5)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at Pelican

Bay State Prison, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging the constitutional validity of his state conviction. Petitioner has filed an

application to proceed in forma pauperis, which is GRANTED (docket no. 4). Petitioner

has also filed a motion to request transcripts, which is GRANTED (docket no. 5). This

order directs Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted after a guilty plea in Napa

County Superior Court of assault and battery and a gang enhancement. He was sentenced

on July 12, 2002 to a term of seven years in state prison. Petitioner filed state habeas

petitions which were denied by Napa County Superior Court, the Court of Appeal, and the

California Supreme Court. Petitioner filed the instant petition on April 19, 2005.

Case 3:05-cv-01629-JSW Document 6 Filed 11/16/05 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 2

DISCUSSION

I Standard of Review

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). 

It 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.” Id. § 2243. 

II Legal Claims

The petition raises the following grounds for relief: (1) selective prosecution in

violation of Petitioner’s constitutional right to equal protection of the laws; (2) the trial

court imposed an enhancement based on the false testimony of the District Attorney’s

gang investigator; (3) cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference by prison

officials who placed Petitioner in a holding cell with a known enemy; and (4) ineffective

assistance of counsel for failure to file a motion to dismiss for selective prosecution and

for failure to challenge the gang enhancement based on perjured testimony. 

Claim Three is not cognizable on a federal habeas petition. Petitioner alleges that

he was convicted of assault and battery for the attack of Phillip Bedolla at the Napa

County jail on June 11, 2001. Petitioner alleges that, on that day, he was told by prison

officials that he would be transported to court, but instead was placed in a holding cell

with Bedolla even though a known enemy situation had been documented, and “a scuffle

ensued.” Petitioner claims that the jail staff acted with deliberate indifference and/or cruel

and unusual punishment by placing these known enemies together in a holding cell. This

allegation does not challenge the fact or length of confinement, however, and is not

cognizable on federal habeas review. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998).

Claim Three is therefore DISMISSED. As to Petitioner’s other claims, liberally construed,

Case 3:05-cv-01629-JSW Document 6 Filed 11/16/05 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 3

it does not appear from the face of the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief. 

Accordingly, Respondent is ordered to respond to the petition as set forth below.

III. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED (docket no. 4).

IV. Motion to Request Transcripts

Petitioner has filed a motion requesting transcripts and court documents for the

purpose of presenting his collateral challenge to his state court criminal conviction from

Napa County, case number CR105590. Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED (docket no. 5). 

Respondent shall provide relevant records as set forth below.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Claim Three of the petition is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable

claim for relief.

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

all attachments thereto, on Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General

of the State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60)

days of the issuance 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 court 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 (30) days of his receipt of the

answer.

4. 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

Case 3:05-cv-01629-JSW Document 6 Filed 11/16/05 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 4

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 (30)

days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

5. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court 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: November 16, 2005

 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01629-JSW Document 6 Filed 11/16/05 Page 4 of 4