Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04220/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04220-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Arnold
Respondent
Clifford Hayter
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

CLIFFORD HAYTER,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-04220-JD 

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court may entertain a petition for 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); Rose v. 

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 

habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 

each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ 

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 

of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

Case 3:16-cv-04220-JD Document 8 Filed 08/31/16 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

LEGAL CLAIMS

Petitioner presents many claims regarding his 2004 conviction. However, court records 

indicate that petitioner previously filed a habeas petition concerning the same conviction. See 

Hayter v. Clark, Case No. 09-cv-0457-JF. In that case, the Court granted a motion to dismiss as 

untimely and the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability. Docket 

Nos. 27, 37 in Case No. 09-cv-0457-JF. “A claim presented in a second or successive habeas 

corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be 

dismissed . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). This is the case unless,

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of 

constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by 

the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or

(B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been 

discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in 

light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by 

clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no 

reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the 

underlying offense.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).

“Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district 

court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the 

district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). It does not appear that 

petitioner has received authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file this petition, therefore he will 

be ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

Petitioner must show cause in twenty-one (21) days why this case should not be dismissed 

as successive. Failure to file a response will result in this case being dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-04220-JD Document 8 Filed 08/31/16 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLIFFORD HAYTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04220-JD 

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 August 31, 2016, 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.

Clifford Hayter ID: V32822

C.S.P. Solano

P.O. Box 4000

Vacaville, CA 95696 

Dated: August 31, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:16-cv-04220-JD Document 8 Filed 08/31/16 Page 3 of 3