Chastang v. Virga
Filing
7
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 6/5/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
LOTICOL CHASTANG,
10
Petitioner,
11
12
vs.
T. VARGA, Warden,
13
Respondent.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 12-1166 JSW (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;
GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS
(Docket No. 6)
15
INTRODUCTION
16
Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se, and he has filed a pro se
17
18
19
20
habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has applied for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. This order directs Respondent to show cause why the petition should
not be granted.
BACKGROUND
21
Petitioner was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court after pleading nolo
22
23
24
25
contendere to counts of carjacking and the use of a firearm. He did not appeal his
conviction. He filed habeas petitions in all three levels of the California courts, and the
petitions were denied.
DISCUSSION
26
27
28
I
Standard of Review
This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a
1
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is
2
in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28
3
U.S.C. § 2254(a). It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to
4
show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that
5
the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243.
6
II
7
Legal Claims
As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner claims: (1) he received ineffective
8
assistance of counsel; (2) exculpatory evidence was kept from him by his attorney, the
9
trial court, and the prosecutor; and (3) his sentence included an enhancement for the use
10
of a gun that was not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of his right
11
to a jury. Petitioner’s claims are sufficient to warrant a response from Respondent.
12
CONCLUSION
13
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,
14
1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition, and
15
all attachments thereto, on Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General
16
of the State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner.
17
2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety (90)
18
days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the
19
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should
20
not be granted based upon the claims found cognizable above. Respondent shall file with
21
the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have
22
been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented
23
by the petition. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a
24
traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of the date
25
the answer is filed.
26
27
28
3. Respondent may, within ninety (90) days, file a motion to dismiss on
procedural grounds in lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to
2
1
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion,
2
Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of
3
non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent
4
shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of the date
5
any opposition is filed.
6
4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep
7
the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice
8
of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion.
9
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant
10
11
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
5. The application to proceed in forma pauperis (docket number 5) is GRANTED
12
in light of Petitioner’s lack of funds.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
16
DATED: June 5, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
LOTICOL KIRK CHASTANG,
Plaintiff,
7
8
9
10
Case Number: CV12-01166 JSW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
T. VIRGA et al,
Defendant.
/
11
12
13
14
15
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on June 5, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
16
17
19
Loticol Kirk Chastang F41212
CSP Sacramento
C6-110
P.O. Box 290066
Represa, CA 95671
20
Dated: June 5, 2012
18
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk
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?