Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00351/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00351-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Ayers
Respondent
Vinnie Sharper Jr.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINNIE SHARPER, JR., 

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT AYERS, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0351 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at the San

Quentin State Prison in San Quentin, California, has filed a habeas corpus petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state sentence

on a probation revocation. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. This order directs

Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was sentenced on October 28, 2003, after a

probation revocation hearing in the Superior Court in Martinez, California, to ten years in

state prison. Petitioner appealed his sentence to the California Court of Appeal, which

denied the appeal in 2004. The Supreme Court of California denied Petitioner’s petition

for review in 2005. The instant federal habeas petition was filed on January 18, 2007. 

DISCUSSION

I Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a 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.

Case 3:07-cv-00351-JSW Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 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

§ 2254(a). 

It 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.” Id. § 2243. 

II Legal Claims

The petition raises the following ground for relief: Petitioner suffered ineffective

assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment based on counsel’s recommendation

that Petitioner confess to certain allegations during revocation proceedings, in his

summation and in failing to adequately investigate Petitioner’s potential defense to the

allegations; and that Petitioner’s sentence on the probation revocation violates the Eighth

Amendment. Petitioner’s challenges to the state appellate courts’ denial of the above

claims does not present a claim for relief, as that challenges addresses the same alleged

underlying constitutional errors as set forth above. 

Petitioner’s claim that the trial court’s decision to revoke probation and sentence

Petitioner to ten years in state prison was an abuse of discretion does not present a federal

claim. A writ of habeas corpus is available under § 2254(a) "only on the basis of some

transgression of federal law binding on the state courts." Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d

1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)), cert. denied,

478 U.S. 1021 (1986). It is unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged error in

the interpretation or application of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68

(1991). Liberally construed, it does not appear from the face of the petition that Petitioner

is not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel and Eighth Amendment

claims. Accordingly, Respondent is ordered to respond to the petition as set forth below.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition, and

all attachments thereto, on Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of

Case 3:07-cv-00351-JSW Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 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

the State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60)

days of the issuance of this order, 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 granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all

portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant

to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. If Petitioner wishes to respond

to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on

Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the answer.

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court

and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty (30)

days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice

of Change of Address.” He 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)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 26, 2007

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00351-JSW Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINNIE SHARPER JR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT AYERS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-00351 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 26, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Vinnie Sharper

V13802

San Quentin State Prison

FH002L

San Quentin, CA 94974

Dated: July 26, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-00351-JSW Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 Page 4 of 4