Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05267/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05267-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Frauenheim
Respondent
James Edward King
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES EDWARD KING

(CDCR # J-74101),

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 14-5267 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

James Edward King filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The 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 in the United States District Courts. 

BACKGROUND

The petition provides the following information: 

In 1997, King was convicted of four sex crimes and sentenced to a prison term of 35

years to life. In 2009, this court granted King's petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered

that he be re-tried or released from custody. After King rejected a plea offer from the

prosecutor, a second trial was held. 

At the second trial, King was convicted in Monterey County Superior Court of rape of

a child under age 14, oral copulation on a child under age 14, penetration with a foreign object

on a child under age 14, and committing a lewd act with a child under age 14. On April 13,

2010, he was sentenced to a prison term of 35 years to life. 

Case 3:14-cv-05267-SI Document 9 Filed 01/13/15 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

King appealed and sought collateral relief in the state courts following the 2010

conviction. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction in 2010, and

the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review in 2013. The California Court of

Appeal denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus in 2013, and the California Supreme Court

denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus in 2014. He then filed this action.

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) the trial court violated petitioner's right to

a fair trial by permitting the victim to testify to her motive for testifying; (2) the trial court

violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights by terminating the cross-examination of the victim;

(3) the trial court violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights by admitting prior statements and

testimony from the victim; (4) the trial court violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights by

refusing to let him cross-examine the victim with an excerpt of her police interview; (5) the trial

court violated petitioner's right to a fair trial by allowing evidence that child sexual abuse

allegations rarely are false; (6) petitioner's right to a fair trial was violated when the videotape

interview of the victim was given to the jury; and (7) the trial court violated petitioner's Sixth

and Fourteenth Amendment rights by refusing to hold a hearing on alleged juror misconduct.

Liberally construed, the claims are cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding and warrant a

Case 3:14-cv-05267-SI Document 9 Filed 01/13/15 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

response. 

Petitioner's has requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A

district court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever "the court

determines that the interests of justice so require" and such person is financially unable to obtain

representation. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the

discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986).

Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. The interests of

justice do not require appointment of counsel in this action. The request for appointment of

counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 3.)

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

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

 2. The clerk shall serve 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. 

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before March 27, 2015, 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 24, 2015. 

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. Petitioner must promptly keep

the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely

fashion.

Case 3:14-cv-05267-SI Document 9 Filed 01/13/15 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

6. Petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this

case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case.

7. Petitioners in forma pauperis application is DENIED because he has ample funds

to pay the filing fee. (Docket # 2.) Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee no later than

February 27, 2015. 

8. Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 3.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 13, 2015 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05267-SI Document 9 Filed 01/13/15 Page 4 of 4