Chopra v. California

Filing 26

ORDER VACATING DISMISSAL OF THREE CLAIMS; DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 10/26/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2011)

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