Hughes v. Walker

Filing 2

ORDER (vrwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I Petitioner was convicted by a jury in Solano County superior court of first degree murder and attempted robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed the judgment to the California court of appeal and the Supreme Court of California, which on December 10, 2008 denied review. Doc #1 at 5. Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California State Prison at Sacramento in Sacramento, California, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC § 2254. v JAMES WALKER, Warden, Respondent. / DEANGELEO ANTIONE HUGHES, Petitioner, ORDER No C-10-0944 VRW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III For the reasons stated above and good cause shown, 1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of B Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief by raising claims that the trial court erred in giving improper jury instructions and denying petitioner the right to cross-examine the prosecution's witness-in-chief at trial, and that the prosecutor violated petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment right by making degrading comments towards defense counsel. Doc #1. Because petitioner's claims II A This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." USC § 2254(a). 28

It shall "award the writ or issue an order directing

the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." Id § 2243.

appear cognizable under section 2254, they merit an answer from respondent.

this order and the petition, and all attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2.

Respondent shall file electronically with the court,

within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file with the answer a copy of all

portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously 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 with the court and serving it on respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the answer. 3. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file a motion to

dismiss on procedural grounds as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If

respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge

3