Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05065/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05065-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James E. Hall
Respondent
Norris Lee Whitaker
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

NORRIS LEE WHITAKER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JAMES E. HALL, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-5065 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Doc # 2)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Ironwood State Prison in Blythe,

California, 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

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of the State of

California in and for the County of Santa Clara of criminal threats and assault

with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. 

The jury found true two allegations that petitioner personally used a deadly

weapon and the court found true two prior "strike" allegations, one prior serious

felony allegation and three prior prison term allegations. On May 9, 2001,

petitioner was sentenced to two concurrent terms of 25 years to life, with a

Case 3:05-cv-05065-CRB Document 3 Filed 03/23/06 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

consecutive aggregate determinate term of eight years for the enhancement

allegations. Petitioner was also ordered to pay a restitution fine of $13,200.

On December 20, 2002, the California Court of Appeal struck the

enhancement allegation for use of a deadly weapon associated with the assault

conviction and remanded the matter for resentencing. It affirmed the judgment of

the trial court in all other respects. On March 24, 2003, the Supreme Court of

California denied review.

Petitioner also unsuccessfully sought collateral relief from the state courts. 

On November 2, 2005, 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 various instances of ineffective assistance of counsel, instructional

error and prejudicial admission of hearsay evidence. 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 3:05-cv-05065-CRB Document 3 Filed 03/23/06 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.

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must

Case 3:05-cv-05065-CRB Document 3 Filed 03/23/06 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 4

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. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 23, 2006 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05065-CRB Document 3 Filed 03/23/06 Page 4 of 4