Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04682/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04682-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derral G. Adams
Respondent
Monte L. Haney
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

MONTE L. HANEY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4682 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docs # 2 & 4)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison,

Corcoran, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2254. He also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

BACKGROUND

On June 11, 2002, petitioner struck his girlfriend with a heavy object,

ripped out her eye, stabbed her several times and threatened her. A jury in San

Francisco County superior court convicted him of aggravated mayhem, torture,

assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (aggravated assault),

assault with a deadly weapon, willful infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant, and criminal threats. The jury also found the great bodily injury and

weapons enhancements alleged in connection with certain counts to be true. On

March 11, 2005, petitioner was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of

parole plus seven years.

Case 3:07-cv-04682-CRB Document 5 Filed 01/11/08 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

On December 20, 2006, the California Court of Appeal modified the

abstract of judgment to comport with the jury's finding on the great bodily injury

enhancement and affirmed in all other respects. On April 18, 2007, the Supreme

Court of California denied review.

Petitioner also sought collateral relief from the state courts. On September

12, 2007, the Supreme Court of California denied his final petition for state

habeas relief.

DISCUSSION

A. 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. § 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. 

B. Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising several claims,

including instructional error, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel,

prosecutorial misconduct/vindictive prosecution and denial of a jury of "peers." 

Liberally construed, the claims appear cognizable under § 2254 and merit an

answer from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.

2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus

liberally).

/

/

Case 3:07-cv-04682-CRB Document 5 Filed 01/11/08 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

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (doc # 2) is

GRANTED.

2. 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 the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of

this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

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 30 days of his receipt

of the answer.

4. 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 30 days of receipt of the motion, and

respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days

of receipt of any opposition.

/

Case 3:07-cv-04682-CRB Document 5 Filed 01/11/08 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 G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.07\Haney, M1.osc.wpd 4

5. Petitioner 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. 

6. Petitioner's motion (doc # 4) for an order requiring an answer from

respondent is DISMISSED as moot.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 11, 2008 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04682-CRB Document 5 Filed 01/11/08 Page 4 of 4