Maxstadt v. Pickett

Filing 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The Clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order upon the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email address: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov . The Petition and the attachments thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of California. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 3/14/2022. Signed by Judge Robert M. Illman on January 11, 2022. (rmilc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2022)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 RYAN JOSEPH MAXSTADT, Plaintiff, 9 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 v. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 20-cv-08059-RMI JASON PICKETT, 12 Defendant. 13 14 Petitioner Ryan Joseph Maxstadt seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from 15 his state conviction and sentence. The court orders Respondent to show cause why the petition 16 should not be granted. DISCUSSION 17 18 A. Standard of Review 19 This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 20 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 21 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 22 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing 23 the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the 24 application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 25 Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or 26 conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 27 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 28 1 B. Petitioner’s Claims 2 In the habeas petition, Petitioner states the following claims: 3 (1) Petitioner’s right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth 4 Amendments was violated because Petitioner’s trial counsel failed to support 5 Petitioner’s defense with a gunshot residue expert and evidence of the lack of gunshot 6 residue on Petitioner’s hand; failed to utilize key facts regarding the lack of a firearm 7 or testimony regarding the sound of a gunshot; and otherwise failed to investigate the 8 issue of gunshot residue. See Dkt. 1 at 16, 22-23; 9 (2) Petitioner’s due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated because Petitioner’s conviction of the firearm offences was not supported by sufficient 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 evidence: dash camera footage played at trial contravened officer testimony; shell 12 casings were absent from the vehicle and scene; and the gun case in Petitioner’s vehicle 13 was inaccessible while driving, see id. at 25; 14 (3) Petitioner’s due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated because 15 evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that Petitioner possessed a 16 firearm or the specific intent to kill, see id. at 28-30; 17 (4) Petitioner’s due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated because 18 the trial court’s jury instruction on attempted murder erroneously combined the two 19 elements of a direct step and an intent to kill, see id. at 32-33; 20 (5) Petitioner’s due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated because 21 Petitioner’s trial counsel failed to file a motion to transfer venue despite the reasonable 22 likelihood that a fair trial was improbable in Mendocino County; see id. at 34-35; 23 (6) Petitioner’s due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated because 24 Petitioner’s trial counsel failed to strike “at least one juror who was friends with the 25 district attorney,” see id. at 37; 26 (7) Petitioner’s due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated because 27 Petitioner’s trial counsel failed to challenge the court’s refusal to strike the 28 enhancement under P.C. § 12022.53(c), despite a lack of ballistics evidence, see id. 38; 2 1 (8) Petitioner’s due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated because 2 Petitioner’s trial counsel improperly conceded, during closing argument at trial, that 3 Petitioner possessed and discharged a firearm during the incident, see id. at 39-40. 4 5 Petitioner appears to have stated a cognizable claim for relief. The court ORDERS Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted as to these claims. CONCLUSION 6 7 1. The Clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order upon the respondent and the 8 respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email 9 address: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov. The Petition and the attachments thereto are available via 10 the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of California. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of the date 12 this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 13 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall 14 file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the underlying state criminal 15 record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues 16 presented by the petition. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a 17 traverse with the Court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight days of the date the 18 answer is filed. 19 3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer, as set 20 forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 21 within sixty days of the date this order is filed. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall 22 file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 23 twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the Court and 24 serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of the date any opposition is filed. 25 4. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded that all 26 communications with the Court must be served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the 27 document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the Court and all parties informed of any 28 change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He must 3 1 comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of 2 this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 3 4 5. Respondent shall file his Consent or Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction on or before the date his answer is due. This form can be found at www.cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 11, 2022 8 9 ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?