Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01182/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01182-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Norman Patterson
Petitioner
Scribner
Respondent

Document Text:

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

NORMAN PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 07-1182 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

AND TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 5)

On February 26, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has

applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

BACKGROUND

In 2003, in the Superior Court of Alameda County, petitioner was convicted of first

degree murder and robbery, an enhancement for the use of a firearm was found true, and he

was sentenced to a term of life in state prison without the possibility of parole. The

California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied the petition

for review. 

DISCUSSION

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);

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall “award the writ or issue an

Case 3:07-cv-01182-MMC Document 10 Filed 06/08/07 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

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) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 

431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).

Petitioner claims: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of the

Sixth Amendment, when his counsel testified at trial against his interests; (2) he received

ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, by reason of his

counsel’s closing argument; (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of

the Sixth Amendment, when his counsel failed to call an expert witness to testify regarding

the manner of the victim’s death; (4) his counsel’s assistance was so deficient that it

amounted to a complete denial of counsel, and constituted the “functional equivalent of a

guilty plea,” in violation of the Sixth Amendment; (5) the trial court’s denial of his motion to

suppress evidence violated the Fourth Amendment; (6) he was denied the right to represent

himself, in violation of his right to due process; (7) the prosecutor excluded potential jurors

on the basis of their race, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial; and (8) he

received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. 

Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment Claim is not cognizable. Under Stone v. Powell, 428

U.S. 465, 481-82, 494 (1976), federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims is

precluded unless the state failed to provide an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those

claims. California state procedures for motions to suppress evidence provide an opportunity

for full and fair litigation of any Fourth Amendment claim. See generally Terrovona v.

Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1990). Liberally construed, the remaining

claims are cognizable. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Petitioner’s claim that the trial court violated his Fourth Amendment rights by

Case 3:07-cv-01182-MMC Document 10 Filed 06/08/07 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

3

denying a motion to suppress evidence is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim

for federal habeas relief. 

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

amended petition and the petition, along with all attachments thereto, upon respondent and

respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also

serve a copy of this order on petitioner.

 3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 90 days of

the date this order is filed, 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 based on the cognizable claims in the petition. 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

amended 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 the date the answer is filed.

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within 60 days of the date this order

is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or

statement of non-opposition within 30 days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent

shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of the date any

opposition is 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. 

6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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).

Case 3:07-cv-01182-MMC Document 10 Filed 06/08/07 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

7. The application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED in light of

petitioner’s lack of funds.

 This order terminates Docket No. 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 8, 2007 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01182-MMC Document 10 Filed 06/08/07 Page 4 of 4