Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04843/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04843-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Charles England
Petitioner
David L. Runnels
Respondent

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CHARLES ENGLAND,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-4843 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

John Charles England, an inmate at High Desert State Prison, filed this pro se action

seeking a 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. 

BACKGROUND

England reports in his petition that he was convicted in Satna Clara County Superior

Court of possession of methamphetamine, reckless evasion of police, resisting arrest, and being

under the influence of methamphetamine assault with a deadly weapon and resisting arrest. He

also was found to have suffered prior convictions. He was sentenced eventually to a term of 50

years to life in prison. He apparently appealed with partial success on a sentencing issue. He

thereafter was resentenced. He appealed again. His conviction was affirmed by the California

Court of Appeal and his petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court. The

U.S. Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari. He then filed this action.

Case 3:05-cv-04843-SI Document 7 Filed 01/24/06 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

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 the following claims: (1) England's Sixth Amendment right to a jury

trial on the prior conviction was denied, (2) his right to due process was violated because there

was insufficient evidence to prove that the prior convictions used for sentence-enhancement

purposes had the required elements of a serious felony, (3) the trial court's failure to instruct sua

sponte on the requirement of foreseeability of intervening causes violated England's rights under

the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to full instructions on the elements of a crime,

(4) England's 50-years-to-life sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by

the Eighth Amendment. Liberally construed, the claims are cognizable in a federal habeas action

and warrant a response from respondent. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states cognizable claims 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. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

Case 3:05-cv-04843-SI Document 7 Filed 01/24/06 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

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before March 31, 2006, 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 court proceedings 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

with the Court and serving it on respondent on or before April 28, 2006.

5. The in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 2 and # 5.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04843-SI Document 7 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 3