Meyers v. Hedgpeth

Filing 52

AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Regarding Amended Petition; Amended Briefing Schedule. Habeas Answer due by 5/20/2013. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/18/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Incorrect document attached see #2)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/19/2013: # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tmi, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
LEON LEE MEYERS,

No. C-11-5327 TEH (PR)

7
Petitioner,

AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING AMENDED PETITION;
AMENDED BRIEFING SCHEDULE

8
v.
9
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden,
10
Respondent.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11

/

12
Petitioner Leon Lee Meyers has filed a pro se Petition for

13
14
15
16

a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a
judgment of conviction from Alameda County Superior Court.
He has paid the $5.00 filing fee.

Doc. #1.

On April 17, 2012, the Court

17

ordered Respondent, by June 17, 2012, to show cause why a writ of

18

habeas corpus should not be granted.

19

before Respondent filed his answer, Petitioner filed a motion to

20

amend his petition.

21

Granting in Part and Denying in Part the motion to amend the

22

petition.

23

Petitioner to include the following claims in his amended petition:

24

instructional error with respect to the jury instruction for

25

assault, denial of a continuance, and denial of a legal runner.

26

Court stated that the remainder of Petitioner’s proposed claims were

27

not stated with sufficient specificity and, if Petitioner wished to

28

include them in another amended petition, he must file a renewed

Doc. #13.

On May 1, 2012,

On May 23, 2012, the Court issued an Order

(Doc. #18).

In the May 23, 2012 Order, the Court allowed

The

1

motion to include those claims.

2

#26, Petitioner submitted his amended petition.

3

On July 27, 2012, Amended Docket

In his amended petition, in addition to the claims that

4

the Court allowed in the May 23, 2012 Order, Petitioner alleges

5

other claims that he did not include in his motion to amend his

6

petition and which the Court has not addressed.

7

in the section of the petition labeled “Additional Claims.”

8

include such claims as denial of advisory counsel, denial of the

9

right to call witnesses, double jeopardy and an unconstitutional

These claims appear
They

10

probation violation hearing.

11

appear to be cognizable on habeas review.

12

did not include them in his motion to amend his petition, in the

13

interests of justice and judicial economy, the Court will allow them

14

to be included in the amended petition.

15

advised that, he may not add claims to his petition without leave of

16

Court to do so.

Construed liberally, these claims
Even though Petitioner

However, Petitioner is

17

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

18

1.

The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this

19

Order, the Order Granting Petitioner’s Renewed Motion for Copies and

20

the Amended Petition, (Amended Docket #26), on Respondent and

21

Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of

22

California.

23

Petitioner.

24

2.

The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this Order on

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

25

Petitioner, within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Order, an

26

Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

27
28

2

1

Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should

2

not be granted.

3

Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that

4

have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a

5

determination of the issues presented by the Petition.

6

Respondent shall file with the Answer and serve on

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do

7

so by filing a Traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent

8

within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the Answer.

9

3.

In lieu of an Answer, Respondent may file a Motion to

10

Dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory

11

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

12

If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the

13

Court and serve on Respondent an Opposition or Statement of

14

Non-Opposition within thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and

15

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a Reply

16

within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any Opposition.

17

4.

Petitioner is reminded that all communications with

18

the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of the

19

document to Respondent’s counsel.

20

Court and all parties informed of any change of address.

21

Petitioner also must keep the

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

DATED

03/18/2013
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.11\Meyers-11-5327-AMENDED osc re am pet.wpd

3