Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02107/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02107-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark W. Allen
Petitioner
Teresa Schwartz
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK W. ALLEN,

Petitioner,

 v.

TERESA SCHWARTZ, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-02107 CRB (PR)

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville,

filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a

judgment of conviction from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the

County of Alameda.

Per the order filed July 27, 2005, the court found that petitioner’s seven claims,

including errors in the jury instructions, jury misconduct and ineffective assistance of

counsel, appeared colorable under § 2254 and ordered respondent to show cause why a writ

of habeas corpus should not be granted.

Respondent has filed an answer and petitioner has filed a traverse. In the answer,

respondent alleges that claims 4 and 7 were not fairly presented in state court and therefore

have not been properly exhausted. Petitioner concedes that claim 7 was not exhausted and

Case 3:05-cv-02107-CRB Document 14 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\CRBALL\2005\2107\ordertosupplement.wpd 2

withdraws it, but he insists that claim 4 was fairly presented to the Supreme Court of

California. 

In claim 4, petitioner argues that the combination of instructional errors cited in claims

1 and 2 created the separate error of effectively withdrawing his defense to the excessive

force element of the charged counts. On careful review of the petition for review submitted

to the Supreme Court of California, the court finds that petitioner fairly presented this claim

to the state high court. See Pet. for Review at 8-11. Claim 4 was properly exhausted. 

Importantly, the court does not read claim 4 as alleging cumulative error or

cumulative prejudice that resulted from individual errors in the state proceedings. Claim 7

raised that issue. Again, claim 4 alleges that the combination of errors in the jury charge

effectively deprived petitioner of his defense to the excessive force element of the charged

counts.

Within 15 days of this order, respondent shall supplement the answer to address the

fourth claim on the merits. If petitioner wishes to respond to the supplemental answer, he

shall do so by filing a supplemental traverse with the court and serving it on respondent

within 15 days of his receipt of the supplemental answer. 

Petitioner again 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. Petitioner must

also keep the court and all parties informed of any change of address.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02107-CRB Document 14 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 2