Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01874/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01874-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
H. B. Anglea
Respondent
Keith E. Woodhouse
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH E. WOODHOUSE, AS0223,

Petitioner,

v.

H. B. ANGLEA, Acting Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-01874-SK (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(ECF No. 2)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Sierra Conservation Center in Jamestown, 

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

challenging a conviction from Santa Clara County Superior Court. He also seeks leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

The petition is properly before the undersigned for initial review because petitioner has 

consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of committing 30 lewd acts on a child under the age of 

14 years. The jury also found true 30 multiple-victim allegations, one attached to each count, 

which required alternative sentencing. On November 22, 2013, petitioner was sentenced to 30

years to life in state prison. 

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal and the 

Supreme Court of California. He also unsuccessfully sought habeas relief from the state courts. 

On January 17, 2018, the Supreme Court of California denied his final state petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus.

Case 4:18-cv-01874-YGR Document 5 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

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 on the ground that he “was denied his right to 

terminate a police interrogation and opt for an attorney’s presence.” Pet. (ECF No. 1) at 5, 5a. 

Liberally construed, the claim appears cognizable under § 2254 and merits an answer from 

respondent. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981) (suspect who has expressed 

desire to have counsel present during custodial interrogation is not subject to further interrogation 

by authorities until counsel is made available to him, unless suspect himself initiates further 

communication with police); see also Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) 

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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.

2. The clerk shall serve (1) a copy of this order, (2) the petition and all attachments 

thereto, and (3) a notice of assignment of prisoner case to a United States magistrate judge and 

accompanying magistrate judge jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form (requesting 

that respondent consent or decline to consent within 28 days of receipt of service), 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 

Case 4:18-cv-01874-YGR Document 5 Filed 04/04/18 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 must serve and file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition not more than 28 days after the motion is served and filed, and 

respondent must serve and file a reply to an opposition not more than 14 days after the opposition 

is served and filed.

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2018

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-01874-YGR Document 5 Filed 04/04/18 Page 3 of 3