Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05241/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05241-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of California
Respondent
Matthew C. Kramer
Respondent
Andrew Wadsworth
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW WADSWORTH,

Petitioner,

 v.

MATTHEW C. KRAMER, Warden, and the

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondents /

No. C 07-5241 MMC

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

RESPONDENTS TO FILE RESPONSE

TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

Before the Court is Andrew Wadsworth’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed

October 12, 2007, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was charged in Alameda County Superior Court with the murder of

Antonio Young, under Cal. Pen. Code § 187, subd. (a). See People v. Wadsworth, 2006

WL 3293420, *1 (Cal. App. 2006). The charge included allegations “that in the course of

the homicide [petitioner] intentionally discharged a firearm and caused great bodily injury

and death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), personally used a firearm (§ 1203.06, subd. (a)(1)), and

intentionally inflicted great bodily injury ( § 1203.075).” See id. Following trial, a jury found

petitioner guilty as to the murder charge, “finding the murder to be in the first degree and

that the special enhancement allegations were all true.” See id. Petitioner “was sentenced

Case 3:07-cv-05241-MMC Document 2 Filed 10/22/07 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

to 50 years to life: 25 years to life for first degree murder, and 25 years to life for the

infliction of great bodily injury through use of a firearm.” Id. On November 14, 2006, the

California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. See id. at *9. On July 11, 2007, the

California Supreme Court denied review. (See Pet. and Mem. in Support of Pet. at 3:3-5.)

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

A district 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.” See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a). A district court 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.” See 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) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63,

75-76 (1977)).

B. Petitioner’s Claims

In his petition, petitioner makes the following claims: (1) petitioner was “deprived of

his right to be represented by competent counsel,” (see Pet. at 3:11), because petitioner’s

trial counsel “never asked the petitioner if he was enraged or in the heat of passion when

he shot Antonio Young,” (see id. at 3:21-23), and “failed to investigate other witnesses who

could have corroborated petitioner Wadsworth’s testimony that Antonio Young had shot

persons in the past,” (see id. at 4:20-21); (2) “the exclusion of Antonio Young’s admissions

that he had shot other persons was a violation of the petitioner Wadsworth’s Due Process

Rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and a

violation of the petitioner’s right to Confront Witnesses against him and his right to

Subpoena Witnesses under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” (id. at

4:5-10); and (3) “[t]he admission of prior acts of misconduct to impeach Tracy Hill and

Case 3:07-cv-05241-MMC Document 2 Filed 10/22/07 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

Andrew Wadsworth was a violation of the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution,” (id. at 5:13-16). 

The Court cannot say, from the face of the pleadings, that the claims alleged by

petitioner are vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. 

Consequently, respondent will be directed to file a response to the petition. Specifically,

respondent will be directed to either file a motion to dismiss, if such a motion is warranted,

or, alternatively, to file an answer, attaching thereto a copy of all portions of the state record

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition, and a supporting

memorandum of points and authorities.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing:

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

Petition, and the Memorandum in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus upon

respondents.

2. Respondents shall file, within 30 days of the date of service of this order, either a

motion to dismiss, noticed for hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2, or an answer and

supporting memorandum of points and authorities.

3. In the event respondents file an answer, petitioner may, within 30 days thereafter,

file a reply.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05241-MMC Document 2 Filed 10/22/07 Page 3 of 3