Uckele v. Knipp

Filing 2

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer due by 1/7/2013. Signed by Judge Alsup on 11/6/12. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ANTHONY WINSTON UCKELE,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WILLIAM KNIPP, Warden,
Respondent.
/

15
16

No. C 12-4969 WHA

Petitioner Anthony Winston Uckele is currently confined at Mule Creek Sate Prison in

17

Ione. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, he has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging a

18

conviction in California state court.

19

An information was filed on April 27, 2007, amended on November 20, charging

20

petitioner with thirty-six counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a minor under the age of 14. The

21

alleged victim in all counts was the same. On March 14, 2008, following a jury trial, defendant

22

was sentenced to 44 years on counts 1 through 20. Counts 21 through 36 were dismissed on

23

motion of the prosecutor. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and the

24

California Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for

25

writ of certiorari.

26

A district court may entertain a habeas petition filed by someone in custody pursuant to a

27

state-court judgment but only on grounds that the petitioner is held in violation of the

28

Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). A court may “issue an

1

order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,” unless the

2

petition is baseless. 28 U.S.C. 2243.

3

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that (1) because the jurors were not

4

unanimous regarding which acts constituted the charged crimes in counts 3 through 20, his

5

federal constitutional right to due process was violated and (2) the prosecution’s use of improper

6

character evidence from petitioner’s mother violated his federal constitutional right to due

7

process. The issues in the petition are sufficient to require a response.

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

1. The CLERK SHALL SERVE by regular mail a copy of this order and the petition with
attachments upon respondent and respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of
California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner’s counsel.
2. RESPONDENT SHALL FILE WITH THE COURT AND SERVE ON PETITIONER, WITHIN

12

SIXTY DAYS OF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS ORDER, AN ANSWER

13

5 of the Rules governing Section 2254 cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should

14

not be granted. Respondent shall, by that date, also serve all other materials required by Habeas

15

Local Rule 2254-6(b). The record must be indexed.

16

conforming in all respects to Rule

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a TRAVERSE WITH

17

THE COURT AND SERVING IT ON RESPONDENT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE DATE THE

18

ANSWER IS FILED.

19

3. Respondent may file, WITHIN SIXTY DAYS, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds

20

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

21

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

22

court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within THIRTY DAYS

23

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

24

reply within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date any opposition is filed.

25

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

26

respondent by mailing a true and correct copy of the document to respondent’s counsel.

27

Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the

28

Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for
2

1

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson,

2

104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: November 6, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3