Polk v. Cate et al

Filing 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge William Alsup denying 9 Ex Parte Application ; denying 10 Motion for TRO; denying 12 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SUSAN MAE POLK, No. C 12-5986 WHA (PR) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; DENYING PENDING MOTIONS 10 11 v. For the Northern District of California United States District Court Petitioner, 12 13 MATTHEW CATE, (Docket Nos. 9, 10, 12) 14 Respondent. / 15 INTRODUCTION 16 17 Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. She has paid the filing fee. Respondent is ordered to show 19 cause why the petition should not be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims and 20 petitioner’s various motions are decided, below. STATEMENT 21 22 In 2006, petitioner was convicted in Contra Costa County Superior Court after a jury 23 found her guilty of second-degree murder and the use of a weapon. She was sentenced to a 24 term of sixteen years to life in prison. On direct review, the California Court of Appeal 25 affirmed the conviction and sentence, and the California Supreme Court denied a petition for 26 review. Petitioner filed a large number of collateral and post-conviction petitions in all three 27 levels of the California courts. 28 1 2 ANALYSIS A. STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in 4 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 5 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose 6 v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 7 requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ 8 of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state 9 court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not 12 sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of 13 constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 14 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). 15 B. LEGAL CLAIMS 16 Petitioner sets forth 89 claims, grouped into nine categories, as grounds for federal 17 habeas relief. When liberally construed, these claims are cognizable, and an order to show 18 cause will issue. 19 CONCLUSION 20 In light of the foregoing, 21 1. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the 22 respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The 23 clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner. 24 2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 84 days of the 25 issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 26 Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on 27 the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on 28 petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously 2 1 and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 2 3 If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 28 days of the date the answer is filed. 4 3. Respondent may file, within 84 days, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in 5 lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules 6 Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the 7 court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 28 days of 8 the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a 9 reply within 14 days of the date any opposition is filed. 4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must 12 keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a 13 timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute 14 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 15 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 16 5. Petitioner’s application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) for further access 17 to her legal papers (dkt. 10) is DENIED for failure to comply with the notice requirements 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1). She has paid the filing fee, and her application to 19 proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 12) is DENIED as unnecessary. Her application to file or lodge 20 trial transcripts (dkt. 9) is also DENIED as unnecessary because respondent has been ordered to 21 do so. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: December 20 , 2012. 24 WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.12\POLK5986.OSC.wpd 3

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?