Murcia v. Haviland

Filing 18

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. Respondent shall file, within ninety (90) days, an answer and a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previousl y and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse within thirty (30) days of the date the answer is filed. In lieu of an answer, resp ondent may file, within ninety (90) days, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and re spondent shall file a reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any opposition is filed. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 3, 2011. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/3/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

ELVIS ANTHONY MURCIA,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
RICK HILL, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________ )

No. C 09-3866 MMC (PR)
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED

On August 24, 2009, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

16

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order filed

17

September 4, 2009, the Court granted petitioner’s request to stay the petition while he

18

returned to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Additionally, the Court directed

19

the Clerk of the Court to administratively close the case while the stay remained in effect.

20

Subsequently, the Court, by order filed May 20, 2011, granted petitioner’s request to reopen

21

the case on the ground his claims are now exhausted. By that same order, the Court directed

22

petitioner to file an amended petition that contains all of his exhausted claims. Petitioner has

23

now filed an amended petition.

24

Petitioner claims his conviction violates his federal constitutional rights because (1)

25

certain jury instructions were defective; (2) there was prosecutorial misconduct; (3) petitioner

26

suffered ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (4) petitioner suffered ineffective assistance of

27

appellate counsel; (5) the trial court improperly allowed testimony from a mentally

28

incompetent witness; and (6) the cumulative effect of the foregoing errors violated his right

1

to due process. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims are cognizable, and respondent will

2

be directed to respond to the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
CONCLUSION

3
4

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

5

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

6

petition (Docket No. 17), upon respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General

7

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

8
9

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)
days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

petition.

15
16
17

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with
the Court and serving it on respondent within thirty (30) days of the date the answer is filed.
3. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

the date any opposition is filed.

24
25
26

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on
respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel.
5. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

27

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

28

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be
granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 3, 2011

_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3