Gutierrez v. Gibson et al
Filing
4
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DENYING 2 Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 04/05/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. C-11-4740 TEH (PR)
EDWARD GUTIERREZ,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DENYING
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
v.
C. GIBSON, Warden,
15
Respondent.
16
/
Doc. #2
17
18
Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Corcoran
19
State Prison in Corcoran, California, has filed a pro se Petition
20
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a
21
judgment of conviction from Santa Clara County Superior Court.
22
Doc. #1.
23
24
I
According to the Petition, in September 2008, Petitioner
25
was sentenced to twenty-seven years and four months in state prison
26
following his conviction for burglary, assault with a deadly weapon,
27
felony vandalism, possession of a billy club, and being under the
28
influence of methamphetamine.
Doc. #1 at 2.
Petitioner
1
unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the state appellate courts
2
and to the California Supreme Court.
3
sought post-conviction relief in the California Supreme Court, which
4
was denied on July 27, 2011.
5
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus followed.
6
Doc. #1 at 3.
Doc. #1 at 4.
Petitioner
The instant federal
II
7
This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas
8
corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of
9
a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
11
U.S.C. § 2254(a).
12
directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be
13
granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant
14
or person detained is not entitled thereto.”
15
16
17
28
It shall “award the writ or issue an order
Id. § 2243.
Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by alleging
that:
(1) trial counsel Jessica Delgato was ineffective for
18
failing to call certain witnesses (Doc. #1-1 at 3), failing to
19
attack the allegedly improper identification of Petitioner (id.),
20
and tampering with witness Hernandez;
21
(2) trial counsel Kipp Davis was ineffective for failing
22
to address inaccuracies and errors in the testimony provided by
23
witness Hernandez (id. at 5), coercing Petitioner to plead guilty
24
(id. at 5), failing to ensure the chain of custody of a key piece of
25
evidence (camera) (id. at 7), failing to object to the introduction
26
of allegedly prejudicial photos of Petitioner (id. at 9-10), failing
27
to impeach witnesses who lied on the stand (id. at 13), failing to
28
2
1
cross-examine the blood technician who examined Petitioner and the
2
doctor who examined witness Hernandez (id. at 16), and failing to
3
contest the trial court’s application of a prior conviction in
4
determining Petitioner’s sentence (id. at 20-21);
5
(3) prosecutorial misconduct in allegedly mishandling and
6
misrepresenting the chain of custody regarding a key piece of
7
evidence (id. at 6-9) and in introducing allegedly prejudicial
8
pictures of Petitioner (id. at 9-10);
9
(4) judicial misconduct in allowing Mr. Davis to represent
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Petitioner after Mr. Davis allegedly admitted to threatening
11
Petitioner (id. at 6), and for failing to hear a Mardsen motion (id.
12
at 15);
13
(5) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise
14
the above issues in Petitioner’s direct appeal, and for failing to
15
communicate openly with Petitioner;
16
(6) the restitution fine was excessive and constituted
17
cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment
18
(id. at 21); and
19
20
(7) juror misconduct and bias on the parts of Jurors 6, 10
and 12 (id. at 22).
21
Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims appear cognizable
22
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an Answer from Respondent.
23
Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts
24
must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus
25
liberally).
26
//
27
//
28
//
3
See
1
III
2
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,
3
1.
The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of
4
this Order and the Petition, and all attachments thereto (i.e., Doc.
5
#1), on Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General
6
of the State of California.
7
this Order on Petitioner.
8
9
2.
The Clerk also shall serve a copy of
Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on
Petitioner, within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Order, an
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing
11
Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should
12
not be granted.
13
Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that
14
have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a
15
determination of the issues presented by the Petition.
16
Respondent shall file with the Answer and serve on
If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do
17
so by filing a Traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent
18
within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the Answer.
19
3.
In lieu of an Answer, Respondent may file a Motion to
20
Dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory
21
Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
22
If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the
23
Court and serve on Respondent an Opposition or Statement of
24
Non-Opposition within thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and
25
Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a Reply
26
within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any Opposition.
27
28
4.
Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis
4
1
(Doc. #2) is DENIED because he has sufficient funds to pay the $5.00
2
filing fee in this action.
3
no later than May 7, 2012 or this action may be dismissed.
4
5.
Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee
Petitioner is reminded that all communications with
5
the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of the
6
document to Respondent’s counsel.
7
Court and all parties informed of any change of address.
8
Petitioner also must keep the
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
DATED
04/05/2012
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.11\Guiterrez-11-4740-osc.wpd
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?