Taylor v. Jaime

Filing 11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 12/9/2019. Signed by Judge Robert M. Illman on 10/10/2019. The clerk hereby certifies that on 10/10/2019 a copy of this Order was served by sending it via first-class mail to the address of each non-CM/ECF user listed on the docket. (rmilc1s, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

NAMON TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,

9

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO
SHOW CAUSE

10

v.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 19-cv-05664-RMI

GEORGE JAIME,

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendant.

12
13
14

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

15

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Alameda County, so venue is proper here. See 28

16

U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner has paid the filing fee and consented to the jurisdiction of a

17

Magistrate Judge. See (dkts. 7, 9).
BACKGROUND

18

Petitioner was convicted of committing two robberies and possessing a firearm as a felon.

19
20

People v. Taylor, No. A148960, 2018 WL 3968496, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2018).

21

Petitioner was sentenced to a 15-year term in state prison. Id. at 3. On direct appeal, the state

22

appellate court remanded for the trial court to consider whether to impose the firearm-use

23

enhancement, while affirming the judgment in all other respects. Id. at 7. Thereafter, the California

24

Supreme Court denied review. Pet. (dkt. 1) at 3. Petitioner’s state court habeas petitions were

25

denied. Id. at 3-4.

26

//

27

//

28

//

DISCUSSION

1
Standard of Review

3

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

4

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

5

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v.

6

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

7

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of

8

habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court

9

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting

10

each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility

12

of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

13

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

14

Legal Claims

15

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner asserts that: (1) the uncharged crime

16

evidence that was presented to prove his identity unconstitutionally lightened the prosecution’s

17

burden of proof on the charged offense to permit the jury to find Petitioner was the offender in the

18

uncharged crime by a preponderance of the evidence; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing

19

to conduct a pretrial investigation, specifically for failing to challenge the search of Petitioner’s

20

car trunk; and (3) that evidence was illegally seized by police. Pet. (dkt. 1) at 3-6. Liberally

21

construed, these claims are sufficient to require a response.

22

Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. See Pet.’s Mot. (dkt. 2). The

23

Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v.

24

Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a

25

district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines

26

that the interests of justice so require.” In the present case, the court finds that the interests of

27

justice do not warrant the appointment of counsel at this time because the issues are not complex,

28

and Petitioner has presented his claims adequately.
2

CONCLUSION

1

1. The motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 2) is DENIED. The clerk shall serve by

2
3

regular mail a copy of this order, the Petition and all attachments thereto and a Magistrate Judge

4

Jurisdiction consent form on respondent and Respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General of the

5

State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner.
2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within fifty-six (56) days of

6

the issuance of this order, an Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

8

Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.

9

Respondent shall file with the Answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state

10

trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

issues presented by the Petition.
If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the

12
13

court and serving it on Respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the answer.
3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer, as

14
15

set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

16

If Respondent files such a motion, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the date this order is entered.

17

If a motion is filed, Petitioner shall file with the court and serve on Respondent an opposition or

18

statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and

19

Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of

20

receipt of any opposition.
4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

21
22

Respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must

23

keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a

24

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

25

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772

26

(5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

27

//

28

//
3

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 10, 2019

3
4
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
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
4