Martinez v. Trimble

Filing 2

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/14/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2011)

1
2

*E-Filed 11/14/11*

3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

15
16

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner,

13
14

No. C 11-3553 RS (PR)

RUSSELL MARVIN MARTINEZ,

v.
ROBERT H. TRIMBLE, Warden,
Respondent.
/

17
18
19

INTRODUCTION
This is a federal habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a pro se

20

state prisoner. The petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243

21

and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The filing fee has been paid.

22

BACKGROUND

23

According to the petition, in 2006, a Santa Cruz County Superior Court jury convicted

24

petitioner of second degree murder, and premeditated attempted murder, consequent to which

25

he was sentenced to 35 years-to-life. It appears that petitioner pursued direct, but not

26

collateral, state review of his convictions.

27
28

No. C 11-3553 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

DISCUSSION

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

11

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that (1) the trial court gave

12

erroneous instructions on voluntary manslaughter and attempted voluntary manslaughter;

13

(2) the trial court gave erroneous instructions on how and when the jury could consider

14

evidence of provocation; (3) the trial court failed to instruct on how provocation can reduce

15

murder to manslaughter, and attempted murder to attempted manslaughter; (4) defense

16

counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request various instructions, and (5) the

17

cumulative effect of all trial errors violated petitioner’s due process rights. When liberally

18

construed, these claims appear to be cognizable on federal habeas review.

19
20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
2

No. C 11-3553 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

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

2

petition.

3

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

4

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

5

answer is filed.

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

11

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

12

the date any opposition is filed.

13
14
15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19
20

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.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

DATED: November 14, 2011
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
3

No. C 11-3553 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE