Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02925/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02925-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRUS D. STANLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

E. CONTRERAS,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-2925 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Tyrus D. Stanley, currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional

Institution in San Diego, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. His petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule

4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. His in forma pauperis application also is

before the court for consideration. 

BACKGROUND

According to the habeas petition, Stanley was convicted in Santa Clara County

Superior Court of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to do great bodily injury and a 

sentence enhancement allegation that he suffered a prior conviction was found true. On

August 18, 2006, he was sentenced to a prison term he does not identify but for which he is

now in custody. 

Stanley appealed. His conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal in

2007 and his petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court in 2008. He

then filed this action. 

Case 3:09-cv-02925-MHP Document 7 Filed 03/30/10 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

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). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

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

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

The petition alleges three claims, only the first of which warrants a response. First,

Stanley claims that he was denied his federal constitutional rights to cross-examine witnesses

and present a defense by the trial court’s refusal to allow him to impeach two witnesses with

their prior convictions. Liberally construed, the claim is cognizable in a federal habeas

action. 

Second, Stanley claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the findings on

the prior conviction sentence enhancement. See Petition exhibits, petition for review at 11. 

This claim does not allege a violation of any right under the Constitution or laws or treaties

of the United States, as is necessary to give this court the power to consider the claim. 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); Engle, 456 U.S. at

119. The claim in Stanley's petition is for a state law error for which federal habeas relief is

not available. Although there are citations to federal constitutional provisions and U.S.

Supreme Court cases at page 13 of his petition for review, those citations are not for his

claim that the evidence was insufficient. The federal citations pertained to his argument that

Case 3:09-cv-02925-MHP Document 7 Filed 03/30/10 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

retrial should be barred if the reviewing court determines that there was insufficient

evidence. The question of whether a retrial should be permitted if an error is found does not

transform the underlying claimed error into an error for which federal habeas relief is

available. The claim is dismissed.

Third, Stanley claims that he acted in self-defense when the stabbing occurred. This

claim must be dismissed because, like the second claim, it does allege a violation of the

Constitution or treaties or laws of the United States, which is required for a federal court to

be able to consider a claim in a habeas petition. With regard to his self-defense claim,

Stanley states that he did not present it at trial “because my lawyer in her opinion felt that

self defense was weak.” Petition, p. 4. The court does not understand this statement to be an

effort to assert a claim for a violation of Stanley’s Sixth Amendment right to effective

assistance of counsel because (a) he did not identify it as a separate claim but instead

mentioned it as an excuse for not presenting his self-defense claim earlier, (b) he did not

mention the Sixth Amendment, and (c) adding such a claim would immediately create a

mixed petition problem for Stanley because he never presented a Sixth Amendment claim to

the state’s highest court. The claim is dismissed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states a cognizable claim for habeas relief and warrants a response. 

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

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California.

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before June 24, 2010, 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 issued. Respondent must file with

the answer a copy of all portions of the state court record that have been previously

transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

Case 3:09-cv-02925-MHP Document 7 Filed 03/30/10 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

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before July 9, 2010. 

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He must keep the court

informed of any change of address and 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).

6. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 2.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2010 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:09-cv-02925-MHP Document 7 Filed 03/30/10 Page 4 of 4