White v. Arnold et al

Filing 6

AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 8/14/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 6/15/2018. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PHILLIP WHITE,
Petitioner,

8

AMENDED 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

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

14

1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition and all

15
16

attachments thereto upon the California Attorney General’s Office, 455 Golden Gate

17

Avenue, Suite 11000, San Francisco, CA 94102.

18

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within 60 days of the date of

19

this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section

20

2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent

21

shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the

22

administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

23

petition.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

3. If the Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the

2

court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the answer.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: June 15, 2018
______________________________________
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