White v. Arnold et al

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 2/20/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 12/20/2017. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PHILLIP WHITE,
Petitioner,

8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9

v.

10

ERIC ARNOLD,

Regarding Docket No. 1

Respondent.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-06507-SK

Petitioner, a federal prisoner incarcerated at Solano State Prison, has filed a petition for a

12
13

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a conviction from Alameda County

14

Superior Court. The petition is properly before the undersigned for initial review because

15

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

16

BACKGROUND

17

On August 25, 2008, the Alameda County District Attorney charged Petitioner with

18

murder. Petitioner was found incompetent to stand trial and committed to Atascadero State

19

Hospital. On January 14, 2011, the court found that Plaintiff was competent to stand trial and

20

reinstated the criminal charges. A jury convicted Petitioner of first degree murder, and Petitioner

21

was sentenced to twenty-five years to life, plus a consecutive term of one year for use of a deadly

22

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

23
24

Supreme Court of California, which on August 10, 2016 denied review his petition.
DISCUSSION

25
26
27
28

A.

Legal Standard.
This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person “in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §

1

2241(c)(3). It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why

2

the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person

3

detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243.
Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or

4
5

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

6

490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

7

B.

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by asserting that his Fourteenth Amendment

8
9

Petitioner’s Legal Claims.

right to due process was violated by prosecutorial misconduct, by conviction without sufficient
evidence, and by dismissal of his claim of incompetency in his absence. Liberally construed, the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

claims appear potentially colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an answer from

12

Respondents.
CONCLUSION

13
14

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

15

1.

Petitioner shall serve by certified mail (1) a copy of this order, (2) the petition and

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

and respondent’s attorney, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, and

20

the Attorney General of the United States in Washington, D.C.
2.

21

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of the

22

issuance of this Order, an answer responding to the allegations in the petition and showing cause

23

why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and

24

serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the administrative record that are relevant to a

25

determination of the issues presented by the petition.

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

3.

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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2017
______________________________________
SALLIE KIM
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3