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judgment in an unpublished opinion, People v. Hill, No. A117040,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