King v. McEwen
Filing
4
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS. Habeas Answer due by 1/7/2013. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 11/05/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
No. C-12-5140 TEH (PR)
KLINTON MICHAEL KING,
Petitioner,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS
STATUS
v.
L.S. McEWEN, Warden,
15
Doc. #2
Respondent.
16
/
17
18
Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at California
19
State Prison in Lancaster, California, has filed a pro se Petition
20
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a
21
judgment of conviction from Lake County Superior Court.
22
He also applies for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which the
23
Court grants.
Doc. #2.
24
25
Doc. #1.
I
According to the Petition and the attached documents,
26
sometime in 2010, Petitioner pled guilty to two counts of lewd and
27
lascivious acts.
28
October 29, 2004 involving the same victim, Jane Doe, who is
The charges stem from incidents that occurred on
1
Petitioner’s step-daughter.
2
Petitioner to ten years in prison.
3
conviction relief in the state appellate courts until the California
4
Supreme Court denied his petition for review on November 2, 2011.
5
The instant federal Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus followed.
6
7
On August 6, 2010, the court sentenced
Petitioner sought post-
II
This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas
8
corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of
9
a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
11
U.S.C. § 2254(a).
12
directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be
13
granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant
14
or person detained is not entitled thereto.”
15
28
It shall “award the writ or issue an order
Id. § 2243.
It is difficult to ascertain exactly what claims
16
Petitioner asserts, but it appears that he seeks federal habeas
17
corpus relief on the following claims:
18
not voluntary because he was coerced into agreeing to it, he was on
19
mind altering drugs prescribed by his doctor, and the terms of the
20
plea bargain were misrepresented by public officials;
21
(2) ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to
22
communicate adequately with Petitioner, failure to interview
23
witnesses important to the defense, failure to show or take an
24
interest in Petitioner’s defense and failure to fulfill counsel’s
25
professional duties; and (3) violation of the ex post facto clause
26
regarding his sentencing.
27
appear cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an Answer from
28
(1) his plea of guilty was
Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims
2
1
Respondent.
2
2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of
3
habeas corpus liberally).
4
See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.
Petitioner also alleges that the trial court erred by
5
entering an order prohibiting contact between himself and Jane Doe;
6
however, this claim states a violation of state law, not a violation
7
of the federal Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
8
States.
9
and is denied.
Therefore, this claim is not cognizable on habeas review
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
III
11
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,
12
1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
13
14
is granted.
2.
The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order and the
15
Petition, and all attachments thereto, on Respondent and
16
Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of
17
California.
18
Petitioner.
19
The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this Order on
3.
Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on
20
Petitioner, within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Order, an
21
Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing
22
Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should
23
not be granted.
24
Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that
25
have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a
26
determination of the issues presented by the Petition.
27
28
Respondent shall file with the Answer and serve on
If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do
3
1
so by filing a Traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent
2
within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the Answer.
3
Petitioner fail to do so, the Petition will be deemed submitted and
4
ready for decision thirty days after the date Petitioner is served
5
with Respondent’s Answer.
6
4.
Should
In lieu of an Answer, Respondent may file a Motion to
7
Dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory
8
Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
9
If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Court and serve on Respondent an Opposition or Statement of
11
Non-Opposition within thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and
12
Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a Reply
13
within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any Opposition.
14
5.
It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this
15
case.
16
must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of the document
17
to Respondent’s counsel.
18
all parties informed of any change of address.
Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court
Petitioner also must keep the Court and
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
DATED
11/05/2012
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.12\King 12-5140-osc.wpd
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?