Orr v. Yates

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 10/28/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
No. C 11-4923 WHA (PR)

TALYON JEROME ORR,
10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;
GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Petitioner,
11
12
JAMES A. YATES, Warden,
13
Respondent.
/

14
15

INTRODUCTION
16
Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
17
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
18
STATEMENT
19
Petitioner was convicted in Santa Clara County Superior Court of burglary, receiving
20
stolen property, and sentence enhancements for two prior strike convictions. On appeal, the
21
California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied a
22
petition for review. Petitioner then filed habeas petitions in all three levels of the California
23
courts, but the petitions were denied. Thereafter, petitioner filed the instant federal habeas
24
petition.
25
ANALYSIS
26
A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

27
A federal court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person
28
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

1

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose

2

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

3

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

4

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state

5

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall

6

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

7

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not

8

sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of

9

constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d
688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

B.

12

LEGAL CLAIMS
As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims: (1) evidence of his prior arrests

13

was improperly admitted; (2) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to sufficiently object to the

14

admission of such evidence and in admitting to petitioner’s guilt of receiving stolen property

15

during closing argument; (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (4)

16

counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge palm-print evidence; (5) the prosecutor

17

committed misconduct by failing to collect and preserve relevant evidence and in vouching for

18

the credibility of its witnesses; (6) the trial court violate his right to due process by admitting

19

evidence of his prior arrests; (7) trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to raise

20

errors in the jury instructions; and (8) the cumulative effect of the foregoing errors caused

21

prejudice. Petitioner’s claims, when liberally construed, are cognizable. Respondent may

22

address the first and sixth claims jointly if he so chooses.

23

CONCLUSION

24

1. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the

25

respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The

26

clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner.

27
28

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety days of the
issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing
2

1

Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on

2

the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on

3

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

4

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

5
6
7

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 days of the date the answer is filed.
3. Respondent may file, within ninety days, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds

Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the

10

court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty days

11
For the Northern District of California

in lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules

9

United States District Court

8

of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a

12

reply within fifteen days of the date any opposition is filed.

13

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

14

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must

15

keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a

16

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

17

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772

18

(5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

19
20
21

5. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket number 2) is GRANTED in light of
petitioner’s lack of funds.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
Dated: October

28 , 2011.

23

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.11\ORR4923.OSC.wpd

3