Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03292/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03292-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tommy Felker
Respondent
David Hunter
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

DAVID HUNTER

(CDCR # H-41621),

Petitioner,

v.

TOMMY FELKER, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-3292 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

David Hunter, currently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison, 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 motion for appointment of counsel and motion to accept the petition as timely also are

before the court for its consideration.

BACKGROUND

According to the habeas petition, Hunter was convicted in Alameda County Superior

Court of assault with a firearm and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Sentence

enhancement allegations of prior convictions were found true. He was sentenced on August

24, 2004 to a total of fourteen years in prison. 

Hunter appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction for the

assault with a firearm and reversed the conviction for being a felon in possession of a

firearm. The California Supreme Court denied Hunter's petition for review in May 2006. 

Case 3:07-cv-03292-MHP Document 8 Filed 01/09/08 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 that Hunter was denied his due process and Sixth Amendment

rights to be clearly informed of the nature and cause of the charge against him so that he

could prepare a defense. See, e.g., Petition for review, p. 3 (court of appeal's decision that

several target offenses could support vicarious liability even though they had not been

identified at trial or defined for jury resulted "a denial of his Constitutional right to due

process of law, as he was never given notice either before or during his trial that he could be

found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon on any basis other than his own personal

actions or because he was allegedly participating in a robbery"); id. at 18 (right to due

process violated by the instruction directing jury to find Hunter guilty of armed assault if jury

"believed that he was involved in some other unidentified offense without giving him notice

of what other alleged crimes he needed to defend against.") Liberally construed, the claim is

cognizable in a federal habeas action.

The petition for review attached to and incorporated by reference into the federal

habeas petition also urged that the state appellate court had misapplied state law in affirming

the conviction. The state law claims are dismissed because they provide no potential for

federal habeas relief. A federal court has jurisdiction to issue the writ to remedy violations of

the laws, treaties, or Constitution of the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), but not to

remedy violations of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). 

Case 3:07-cv-03292-MHP Document 8 Filed 01/09/08 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

Hunter filed a motion for appointment of counsel 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. 

Finally, Hunter filed a "motion that this petition attach [sic] herein be accepted as filed

'timely.'" This argument is premature. The court only needs to decide the timeliness

question if respondent moves to dismiss the petition as untimely filed. It is unlikely that

respondent will make such an argument here because Hunter's federal petition appears to

have been filed less than a year after the limitations period commenced upon the conclusion

of direct review. See Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999) (direct review

period includes the 90-day period during which the petitioner could have filed a petition for

writ of certiorari, regardless of whether he did so). The motion therefore will be denied

without prejudice to Hunter making the argument anew if respondent moves to dismiss the

petition as untimely filed. 

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 March 14, 2008,

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

Case 3:07-cv-03292-MHP Document 8 Filed 01/09/08 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

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 18, 2008.

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 motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 2.) 

7. Petitioner's motion for the court to accept his petition as timely filed is

DENIED without prejudice to him making such an argument if respondent moves to dismiss

the petition as untimely filed. (Docket # 3.) 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 8, 2008 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:07-cv-03292-MHP Document 8 Filed 01/09/08 Page 4 of 4