Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04011/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04011-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Greg Lewis
Respondent
Andre Smith
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

ANDRE SMITH, T16447,

Petitioner,

 vs.

GREG LEWIS, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 12-4011 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docket # 2)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, has

filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging a conviction from Alameda County Superior Court. He also seeks to

proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

BACKGROUND

On or about July 13, 2010, petitioner pleaded guilty to attempted murder

and was sentenced to 18 years in state prison. 

Petitioner did not appeal, but unsuccessfully challenged his conviction in

the state courts by filing several petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. The

Supreme Court of California denied his final state petition on June 13, 2012.

DISCUSSION

A. 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). 

Case 3:12-cv-04011-CRB Document 5 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 3
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

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. 

B. Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief on grounds of suppression of

evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. He also claims the suppression of 

evidence rendered his plea involuntary. 

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); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266-67 (1973) (same). The

only challenges left open in federal habeas corpus after a guilty plea is the

voluntary and intelligent character of the plea and the nature of the advice of

counsel to plead. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-57 (1985); Tollett, 411 U.S.

at 267. Petitioner's pre-plea claims of suppression of evidence and prosecutorial

misconduct accordingly are DISMISSED. See id. But liberally construed, his

claim that his plea was not voluntary appears cognizable under § 2254 and merits

an answer from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.

2001) (federal courts must construe pro se habeas petitions liberally).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (docket # 2) is

GRANTED.

2. The clerk shall serve a copy of this order and the petition and all

attachments thereto on respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney

Case 3:12-cv-04011-CRB Document 5 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 3
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

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

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 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 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 Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion,

petitioner must serve and file an opposition or statement of non-opposition not

more than 28 days after the motion is served and filed, and respondent must serve

and file a reply to an opposition not more than 14 days after the opposition is

served and filed.

5. 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. Petitioner must also keep the court and all parties informed of any

change of address. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 4, 2013 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.12\Smith, A.12-4011.osc.wpd

Case 3:12-cv-04011-CRB Document 5 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 3