Patterson v. Warden, San Luis Obispo, 79-2517
| Decision Date | 14 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-2517,79-2517 |
| Parties | Daniel Ray PATTERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, SAN LUIS OBISPO, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Andrea L. Biren, San Francisco, Cal. (argued), Samuel R. Gross, San Francisco, Cal., on brief, for petitioner-appellant.
Blair W. Hoffman, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before GOODWIN, ALARCON and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Patterson's petition for habeas corpus alleged facts which, if proven, might establish that his confession was not voluntary and that the Miranda warnings were defective. The allegations were not so vague, conclusory, or patently frivolous so as to warrant summary dismissal of the petition. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-6, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629-1630, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). Nor do we accept the state's invitation to affirm dismissal on the ground that the rationale of Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), a Fourth Amendment case, extends to preclude reexamination of Fifth Amendment claims in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Indeed, the rationale of Stone v. Powell has not been so extended.
Even if we view the district court's order as a denial of the petition on the merits, we cannot affirm because of the incompleteness of the court's findings and conclusions. Rhinehart v. Gunn, 598 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1979). In reviewing the petition, the district court must determine whether the state court findings are substantially supported by the record and whether the state court applied the proper legal standard. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Taylor v. Cardwell, 579 F.2d 1380, 1382-83 (9th Cir. 1978).
The judgment is vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Pulley
...Turner v. Chavez, 586 F.2d 111, 112 (9th Cir. 1978). See e.g. Pierre v. Thompson, 666 F.2d 424, 427 (9th Cir. 1982); Patterson v. Warden, 624 F.2d 69, 70 (9th Cir. 1980); Cody v. Morris, 623 F.2d 101, 103 (9th Cir. 1980); Griff v. Rhay, 455 F.2d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1972). Unless it is shown ......
-
Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Division
...they are required at least to make minimal findings and conclusions so that their dismissals can be reviewed. See Patterson v. San Luis Obispo, 624 F.2d 69 (9th Cir. 1980). These minimal findings were not made by the trial The district courts should refrain from dismissing actions sua spont......
-
Cahill v. Rushen
...577 (N.D.Cal.1976). The Ninth Circuit has specifically rejected this contention regarding Fifth Amendment claims, Patterson v. Warden, 624 F.2d 69, 70 (9th Cir. 1980), and the Supreme Court has continued to address Sixth Amendment claims raised by state prisoners in habeas proceedings, see,......
-
Lincoln v. Sunn
...to remand to the district court those of Lincoln's assertions that state a claim for relief. See Patterson v. Warden, San Luis Obispo, 624 F.2d 69, 70 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam) habeas case to district court if its findings and conclusions are incomplete and lacking in specificity and peti......