Daigle v. Miller
Filing
4
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Habeas Answer due by 1/15/2013.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/23/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
ELLA MAE MICHELE DAIGLE,
9
Petitioner,
10
vs.
11
WALTER MILLER, Warden,
12
Respondent.
13
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 12-4270 JSW (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
14
15
INTRODUCTION
16
Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se, and she has filed a pro se
17
habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. She has paid the filing fee.
18
Respondent is ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted.
19
BACKGROUND
20
In 2010, a jury in Santa Clara County Superior Court convicted Petitioner of
21
second-degree robbery. Based on this convictions and sentencing enhancements, the trial
22
court sentenced her to a term of 11 years in state prison. Petitioner’s appeals to the
23
California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California were denied in 2010 and
24
2011 respectively.
25
26
27
28
DISCUSSION
I
Standard of Review
This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is
1
in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28
2
U.S.C. § 2254(a). It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to
3
show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that
4
the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243.
5
II
Legal Claims
6
As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner claims: (1) that there was
7
insufficient evidence that she had knowledge that a crime was convicted; (2) that there
8
was insufficient evidence to support an aiding and abetting theory of liability; and (3) the
9
prosecutor failed to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The claims are sufficient
10
to require a response from Respondent. It appears that there may be substantial overlap
11
between the third claim and Petitioner’s other two claims. Respondent may address the
12
third claim separately or in conjunction with the first two claims.
13
CONCLUSION
14
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,
15
1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition, and
16
all attachments thereto, on Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General
17
of the State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner.
18
2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within eighty-four
19
(84) days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of
20
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus
21
should not be granted based upon the claims in the petition. Respondent shall file with the
22
answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have
23
been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented
24
by the petition. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a
25
traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of the
26
date the answer is filed.
27
4. Respondent may, within eighty-four (84) days, file a motion to dismiss on
28
2
1
procedural grounds in lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to
2
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion,
3
Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of
4
non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of the date the motion is filed, and
5
Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14)
6
days of the date any opposition is filed.
7
4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep
8
the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice
9
of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion.
10
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant
11
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
12
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 23, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge
16
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
ELLA MAE DAIGLE,
Case Number: CV12-04270 JSW
Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
7
8
9
10
v.
WALTER MILLER 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 October 23, 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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ella Mae Michele Daigle
WA3794
P.O. Box 92
Chowchilla, CA 93610
Dated: October 23, 2012
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?