Carter v. People of the State California

Filing 19

ORDER REOPENING ACTION; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/6/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2012)

1
2

*E-Filed 6/6/12*

3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12

No. C 11-1242 RS (PR)

CHARLES JOSEPH CARTER,

ORDER REOPENING ACTION;

Petitioner,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

13

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
14 CALIFORNIA,
15

Respondent.
/

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his state convictions. The action was

19

stayed at the request of petitioner while he exhausted his state law claims. Petitioner has

20

filed an amended petition, and a motion to reopen the action and dissolve the stay (Docket

21

No. 18). This motion is GRANTED. The stay is hereby DISSOLVED, and the action

22

REOPENED. The Clerk is directed to reopen the action. The amended petition is now

23

before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

24

Section 2254 Cases.

25
26
27
28

BACKGROUND
According to the petition, in 2008, a San Mateo County Superior Court jury convicted
petitioner of rape and attempted oral copulation. Consequent to the guilty plea, petitioner
No. C 11-1242 RS (PR)
SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1
2

was sentenced to 80 years-to-life in state prison.
DISCUSSION

3

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

4

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

5

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

6

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ

7

or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

8

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

9

thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

10

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

11

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

12

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that (1) the trial court violated

13

his right to due process by admitting evidence of prior sexual misconduct; (2) the trial court

14

violated his right to due process by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 361; (3) there

15

was cumulative error; (4) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for

16

attempted oral copulation; and (5) the length of his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment.

17

Liberally construed, these claims appear to be cognizable in a federal habeas action.

18
19

CONCLUSION
1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

20

attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the

21

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

22

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

23

days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
2

No. C 11-1242 RS (PR)
SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse

1
2

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

3

answer is filed.
4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

4
5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

the date any opposition is filed.

11
12

5. 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.

13

6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

14

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

15

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

16

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

17
18

7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be
granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

19

8. The Clerk is directed to reopen the action and to terminate Docket No. 18.

20

9. The Clerk is also directed to name Gary Swarthout as sole respondent in this

21
22
23

action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 6, 2012
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
3

No. C 11-1242 RS (PR)
SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE