Chopra v. California

Filing 26


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 REENA CHOPRA, 9 10 11 Petitioner, vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, 12 Respondent. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 09-0841 JSW (PR) ORDER VACATING DISMISSAL OF THREE CLAIMS; DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 14 15 Petitioner, formerly a prisoner of the State of California, currently on parole, has 16 filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional 17 validity of her state court conviction. She filed an amended petition setting forth nine 18 claims for relief. In an order dated February 15, 2011, the first six claims were found 19 cognizable, when liberally construed, and Respondent was ordered to show cause why the 20 petition should not be granted based on those claims. Claims seven, eight and nine, 21 however, were dismissed for failure to state a cognizable basis for habeas relief. The 22 Court has reviewed the amended petition again, and upon reconsideration, now finds 23 claims seven, eight, and nine to be cognizable when liberally construed. Claim seven 24 asserts that evidence was erroneously admitted, claim eight asserts that pretrial publicity 25 “poisoned” the jury pool, and claim nine asserts that there was insufficient evidence to 26 support the conviction. 27 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 28 1. The portion of the Order of February 15, 2011, dismissing claims seven, eight 1 2 and nine from the amended petition is VACATED. 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60) 3 days of the issuance of this order, a supplemental answer conforming in all respects to 4 Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas 5 corpus should not be granted based on claims seven, eight and nine. Respondent shall file 6 with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that 7 have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues 8 presented by these claims to the extent Respondent has not already done so. 9 3. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, she shall do so by filing a 10 supplemental traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days 11 of the date the supplemental answer is filed. 12 4. It remains Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must 13 keep the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned 14 “Notice of Change of Address.” She must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely 15 fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute 16 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 26, 2011 JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 REENA CHOPRA, 7 8 9 10 Case Number: CV09-00841 JSW Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. CALIFORNIA et al, Defendant. / 11 12 13 14 15 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on October 26, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 16 17 18 Reena Chopra 230 Grau Drive Fremont, CA 94536 19 Dated: October 26, 2011 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

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?