Smith v. Trimble

Filing 2

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/30/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2011)

1
2

*E-Filed 12/30/11*

3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

No. C 11-4418 RS (PR)

WAYNE WILLIE SMITH,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT H. TRIMBLE,
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. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

22

BACKGROUND

23

According to the petition, in 2008, a San Francisco County Superior Court jury

24

convicted petitioner of the possession and sale of cocaine, and possession of heroin. In

25

consequence, petitioner was sentenced to 13 years and 4 months in state prison.

26
27
28

No. C 11-4418 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

DISCUSSION

1
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

10

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

11

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

12

his right against self-incrimination by failing to exclude his statement to police; (2) the trial

13

court violated his right to due process by admitting evidence of prior crimes; (3) the

14

prosecutor failed to provide exculpatory evidence; and (4) he received ineffective assistance

15

of appellate counsel. Liberally construed, these claims appear to be cognizable in a federal

16

habeas action. It is unclear, however, whether Claim 4 was exhausted. If it is not

17

exhausted, respondent may wish to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds this

18

or other claims.

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 claim. Respondent shall file with the answer and

27

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

28
2

No. C 11-4418 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1
2

transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse

3

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

4

answer is filed.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

the date any opposition is filed.

12
13
14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18
19

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.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED: December 30, 2011
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

No. C 11-4418 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE