United States District Court, N.D. California
KEITH E. WOODHOUSE, AS0223, Petitioner,
H. B. ANGLEA, Acting Warden, Respondent.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF NO. 2)
KIM, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a state prisoner incarcerated at the Sierra Conservation
Center in Jamestown, California, has filed a pro se
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 challenging a conviction from Santa Clara County
Superior Court. He also seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
petition is properly before the undersigned for initial
review because petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction
of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
was convicted by a jury of committing 30 lewd acts on a child
under the age of 14 years. The jury also found true 30
multiple-victim allegations, one attached to each count,
which required alternative sentencing. On November 22, 2013,
petitioner was sentenced to 30 years to life in state prison.
unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California
Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California. He also
unsuccessfully sought habeas relief from the state
courts. On January 17, 2018, the Supreme Court of California
denied his final state petition for a writ of habeas
Standard of Review
court may entertain a petition for a 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. §
shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the
respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,
unless it appears from the application that the applicant or
person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id.
seeks federal habeas corpus relief on the ground
that he “was denied his right to terminate a police
interrogation and opt for an attorney's presence.”
Pet. (ECF No. 1) at 5, 5a. Liberally construed, the claim
appears cognizable under § 2254 and merits an answer
from respondent. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S.
477, 484-85 (1981) (suspect who has expressed desire to have
counsel present during custodial interrogation is not subject
to further interrogation by authorities until counsel is made
available to him, unless suspect himself initiates further
communication with police); see also Zichko v.
Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal
courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of
habeas corpus liberally).
foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 1.
Petitioner's request to ...