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)
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?