Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00261/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00261-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Evans
Respondent
Robert C. Nawi
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

ROBERT C. NAWI,

Petitioner,

v.

R. EVANS, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-261 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Robert C. Nawi, an inmate at the Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se action for

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

Nawi states in his petition that he was convicted in San Francisco County Superior Court

of first degree murder with use of a deadly weapon (i.e., an ice pick) and was sentenced in

October 2001 to a term of 26 years to life in prison. He appealed. The California Court of

Appeal affirmed his conviction and the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review.

He then filed this action. 

Case 3:07-cv-00261-SI Document 2 Filed 03/05/07 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 incorporates by reference the state court appellate briefs filed on Nawi's

behalf. Nawi's petition for review contains three claims of federal constitutional errors, which

this court understand to be the claims he wants this court to consider in habeas. First, Nawi

contends that the admission of statistical probability and DNA evidence violated his Fourteenth

Amendment right to due process. See Petition For Review, pp. 9, 28. Second, he contends that

there was prosecutorial misconduct that violated his right to due process. Id. at 37-39. Third,

he contends that his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights were violated by the

admission of certain hearsay evidence. Id. at 39-41. Liberally construed, these claims are

cognizable in a federal habeas action. The state law claims in the petition for review are not

cognizable in a federal habeas action and are therefore dismissed.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states three 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

Case 3:07-cv-00261-SI Document 2 Filed 03/05/07 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

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 May 18, 2007, 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 June 22, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 5, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00261-SI Document 2 Filed 03/05/07 Page 3 of 3