Chandler v. Frauenheim

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer due by 8/25/2017. Petitioner's Traverse due by 9/22/2017. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/16/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Case No. 17-cv-00325-EMC

CRAIG RICHARD CHANDLER,
Petitioner,

8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

9

Docket No. 1
10

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,
Respondent.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

I.

13

INTRODUCTION

14

Craig Richard Chandler, an inmate at the Pleasant Valley State Prison, filed this pro se

15

action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the

16

Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

17

Cases.

18
19

II.

BACKGROUND

The petition and attachments thereto provide the following information. Mr. Chandler was

20

convicted in Santa Clara County Superior Court of five counts of committing a lewd or lascivious

21

act on a child under the age of 14 years. On November 22, 2013, he was sentenced to five

22

consecutive terms of 15 years to life in prison.

23

Mr. Chandler appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction and the

24

California Supreme Court denied his petition for review in 2016. Mr. Chandler apparently did not

25

file any petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the state courts before filing this action.

26
27
28

III.

DISCUSSION

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

1

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A

2

district court considering an application for writ of habeas corpus shall "award the writ or issue an

3

order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears

4

from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or

6

conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

7

490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

8

Mr. Chandler alleges the following claims in his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus:

counsel failed to adequately cross-examine a witness; (2) he was denied his Sixth Amendment

11

right to the assistance of counsel; (3) prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument deprived

12
For the Northern District of California

(1) he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when trial

10

United States District Court

9

Mr. Chandler of his right to due process; (4) his federal constitutional rights to present a defense

13

and to due process were violated by the exclusion of evidence of his “explanation after allowing

14

the prosecution to introduce evidence that the principal warned him not to blindfold and be alone

15

with students with the door closed,” Docket No. 1 at 28; and by the exclusion of the principal’s

16

typewritten notes, id. at 51; (5) the trial court’s refusal to allow the defense to introduce pork rinds

17

as an exhibit violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine a witness; (6) the

18

admission of evidence that Mr. Chandler “previously offered to massage and photograph a female

19

adult teacher’s feet,” violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, Id. at 40; and (7)

20

the cumulative effect of the foregoing errors supports federal habeas relief. Liberally construed,

21

these claims are cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding.
IV.

22
23

For the foregoing reasons,

24

1.

25

response.

26

2.

CONCLUSION

The petition states cognizable claims for federal habeas relief and warrants a

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments thereto

27

upon Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The

28

Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner.
2

1

3.

Respondent must file and serve upon Petitioner, on or before August 25, 2017, an

2

answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing

3

cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent must file with the answer a

4

copy of all portions of any court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and that are

5

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

4.

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse and

serving it on Respondent on or before September 22, 2017.
5.

Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. Petitioner must promptly keep

the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely
fashion.
6.

Petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this

case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: June 16, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3