Ortiz v. Kirkland

Filing 22

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/15/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2011)

1
2

*E-Filed 11/15/11*

3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

No. C 05-3067 RS (PR)

JOSE B. ORTIZ,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner,
v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH,
Respondent.
/

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18
19

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a pro se

20

state prisoner. The petition was stayed pending exhaustion of state judicial remedies. The

21

action has been reopened and the amended petition is now before the Court for review

22

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
BACKGROUND

23
24

According to the petition, in 2000, a San Benito County Superior Court jury convicted

25

petitioner of murder. Consequent to the verdict, petitioner was sentenced to 50 years-to-life

26

in state prison.

27
28

No. C 05-3067 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

DISCUSSION

1
2

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

3

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

4

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

5

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ

6

or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

7

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

8

thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

9

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

10

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

11

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that (1) there was insufficient

12

evidence to support the murder conviction; (2) he was denied a full and fair hearing on his

13

motion to suppress under the Fourth Amendment; (3) the trial court violated his right to due

14

process by making prejudicial comments and “ruling out” some lesser included felonies as

15

being unsupported by the evidence; (4) he was denied due process when the trial court denied

16

his requests for two pinpoint instructions;1 (5) he was denied due process when the trial court

17

instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 1.22; (6) the prosecutor withheld evidence in violation

18

of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (7) there was cumulative error. Liberally

19

construed, Claims 1 and 3–7 appear to be cognizable in a federal habeas action. Claim 2,

20

however, will be DISMISSED without leave to amend. Such claims are not generally

21

cognizable on federal habeas review. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481–82, 494 (1976),

22

bars federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims unless the state did not provide an

23

opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims. The existence of a state procedure

24

allowing an opportunity for full and fair litigation of Fourth Amendment claims, rather than a

25

defendant’s actual use of those procedures, bars federal habeas consideration of those claims.

26
27

1

This is a consolidation of Claims 4 & 6 in the amended petition.

28
2

No. C 05-3067 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

See Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613–14 (9th Cir. 1990) (whether or not defendant

2

litigated Fourth Amendment claim in state court is irrelevant if he had opportunity to do so

3

under California law). California state procedure provides an opportunity for full litigation

4

of a Fourth Amendment claim. See Cal. Pen. Code § 1538.5.
CONCLUSION

5
6

1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

7

attachments thereto, on respondents and respondents’ counsel, the Attorney General for the

8

State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.

9

2. Respondents shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

10

days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

11

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not

12

be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondents shall file with the answer

13

and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have

14

been transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

15

petition.

16

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse

17

with the Court and serving it on respondents’ counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

18

answer is filed.

19

4. In lieu of an answer, respondents may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

20

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory

21

Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondents file

22

such a motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondents an opposition or

23

statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

24

respondents shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days

25

of the date any opposition is filed.

26
27

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on
respondents by mailing a true copy of the document to respondents’ counsel.

28
3

No. C 05-3067 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

2

Court and respondents informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s

3

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

4

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

5
6
7

7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be
granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.
8. The persons listed as respondents in the petition are not now the proper

8

respondents in this action. Anthony Hedgpeth, Warden of Soledad State Prison, is the

9

proper respondent in this action, as he is the custodian having day-to-day control over

10

petitioner, the only person who can produce “the body” of the petitioner. Brittingham

11

v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d

12

414, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). The Clerk shall change the docket to list Anthony Hedgpeth

13

as sole respondent in this action.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED: November 15, 2011
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

No. C 05-3067 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE