United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS; GRANTING LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD Re: Dkt.
Nos. 4, 5
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an inmate at California State Prison - Solano, filed this
pro se writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. His petition is now before the Court for review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Dkt. No. 5.
to the petition, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of
second-degree murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187). Dkt. No. 1
(“Pet.”) at 2. He was sentenced to fifteen years
to life in state prison. Pet. at 1. His conviction was
affirmed by the California Court of Appeal, and his petition
for review was denied by the California Supreme Court. Pet.
at 3. Petitioner filed a state habeas petition, alleging the
claims raised herein, that was denied by the California
Supreme Court on April 10, 2019. Pet. at 3. The instant
action was filed on June 12, 2019. See Pet.
Standard of Review
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 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a);
Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district
court 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.”
28 U.S.C. § 2243.
alleges the following claims for federal habeas relief: (1)
ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to pursue a
diminished mental capacity defense; (2) insufficient evidence
to support the conviction; (3) Miranda violation;
and (4) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for
failing to raise these three claims. Pet. at 7-31. Liberally
construed, the claims appear to state cognizable federal
claims under § 2254 and merit an answer from Respondent.
See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.
2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions
for writs of habeas corpus liberally).
Motion to Supplement Record
has requested that the record be supplemented with the
exhibits attached to his motion. Dkt. No. 4. This request is
GRANTED to the extent that these exhibits were before the
state court when the state court addressed these claims. In
reviewing the reasonableness of a state court's decision
to which § 2254(d)(1) applies, a district court may rely
only on the record that was before the state court. See
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 180 (2011) (holding
that new evidence presented at evidentiary hearing cannot be
considered in assessing whether state court's decision
“was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law” under
§ 2254(d)(1)). Therefore, a federal court generally is
precluded from supplementing the record with facts adduced
for the first time at a federal evidentiary hearing when a
petitioner's claim has been adjudicated on the merits in
state court. See Pinholster, 563 U.S. at 182-83
(“It would be strange to ask federal courts to analyze
whether a state court's adjudication resulted in a
decision that unreasonably applied federal law to facts not
before the state court.”).
foregoing reasons, the ...