Manai v. Cates

Filing 18

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 12/17/2013. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2013)

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
13
14
15

No. C 12-04399 CRB

SLIM MANAI,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff,
v.
MATHEW CATES,
Defendant.

/

16
17

Petitioner Slim Manai, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony

18

State Prison in San Luis Obispo, California, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

19

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See generally Petition (dkt. 17). Petitioner was convicted of first

20

degree burglary of a home with intent to commit a felony, oral copulation against the

21

victims’ will(s), sexual battery using physical restraint, assault with a deadly weapon,

22

criminal threat, and assault with a deadly weapon. Id. at 3, 16. Petitioner argues that there

23

are four grounds for relief: (1) that the trial court erred in precluding the defense from

24

inquiring into evidence that the complaining witnesses were involved in a romantic

25

relationship; (2) that the trial court’s refusal to replace a biased juror denied Petitioner his

26

right to an impartial jury; (3) that the trial court’s admission of evidence of Petitioner’s

27

foreign crime violated his right to a fair trial; and (4) that the cumulative effect of the trial

28

court’s errors denied him his right to a fair trial. Id. at 19-58.

1

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

2

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

3

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It

4

shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ

5

should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person

6

detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243.

7

Good cause appearing therefor, the Government is hereby ORDERED to file an

8

opposition to Petitioner’s motion within 60 days of this Order. Petitioner may file a response

9

within 30 days thereafter, if he wishes to do so.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: December 17, 2013
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2012\4399\osc.frm

2