Hill v. State of California

Filing 23

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer due by 1/23/2012. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 11/21/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C-09-3147 TEH (PR)

CHAZARUS HILL, Sr.,

12

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary,

15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Respondent.

16

/

17
18

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Sierra

19

Conservation Center in Jamestown, California, filed a pro se amended

20

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

21

challenging a judgment of conviction from Alameda County Superior

22

Court.

23

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition on the

24

ground that Petitioner failed to exhaust two claims contained

25

therein.

26

Petitioner filed a motion to stay the proceedings to allow him to

27

return to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims.

28

The Court granted Petitioner’s motion to stay and closed the case

Doc. #7.

After the Court issued an order to show cause,

Doc. ## 8 & 11.

After Respondent moved to dismiss,

Doc. #12.

1

administratively.

2

in state court, see Doc. #14 at 2, the Court granted his motion to

3

lift the stay and reopened the action.

4

2011, Petitioner filed the instant second amended petition

5

containing all exhausted claims.

Doc. #13.

After Petitioner exhausted all claims

Doc. #21.

On October 3,

Doc. #22.

6
7

I

8
9

Petitioner was sentenced to twenty-six years to life in
state prison following his convictions of first degree murder,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

assault on a child causing death and felony child abuse involving

11

the infliction of great bodily injury on a child under the age of

12

five.

13

judgment in an unpublished opinion, People v. Hill, No. A117040,

14

2008 WL 2130476 (Cal. Ct. App. May 21, 2008), and the California

15

Supreme Court denied his petition for review.

16

2010, the California Supreme Court denied an exhaustion petition

17

filed there.

Doc. #22 at 2.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the

Id.

On December 1,

Doc. #14 at 2.

18
19
20

II
This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas

21

corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of

22

a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation

23

of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

24

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

25

directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be

26

granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant

27

or person detained is not entitled thereto.”

28

It shall “award the writ or issue an order

2

28 U.S.C. § 2243.

1

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by alleging

2

various claims, including there was insufficient evidence to support

3

his convictions, the trial court improperly removed a juror during

4

trial, and the state improperly calculated his time credits.

5

#22.

6

28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an Answer from Respondent.

7

Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must

8

construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).

Doc.

Liberally construed, these claims appear cognizable under
See Zichko v.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

III

11

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

12

1.

The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of

13

this Order and the second amended petition (Doc. #22), and all

14

attachments thereto, on Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the

15

Attorney General of the State of California.

16

serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner.

17

2.

The Clerk also shall

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

18

Petitioner, within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Order, an

19

Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

20

Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should

21

not be granted.

22

Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that

23

have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a

24

determination of the issues presented in the second amended

25

petition.

26
27
28

Respondent shall file with the Answer and serve on

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do
so by filing a Traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent
3

1

within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the Answer.

2

3.

In lieu of an Answer, Respondent may file a Motion to

3

Dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory

4

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

5

If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the

6

Court and serve on Respondent an Opposition or Statement of

7

Non-Opposition within thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and

8

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a Reply

9

within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any Opposition.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

4.

Petitioner is reminded that all communications with

11

the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of the

12

document to Respondent’s counsel.

13

Court and all parties informed of any change of address.

Petitioner also must keep the

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

DATED

11/21/2011
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.09\Hill-09-3147-osc-post-exhaustion.wpd

4