Malmin v. Spearman

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 9/16/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2013)

1
2
3

*E-Filed 9/16/13*

4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner,

13
14

No. C 13-2455 RS (PR)

THOMAS DAVID MALMIN,

v.
MARION SPEARMAN, Warden,
Respondent.

16

/

17

INTRODUCTION

18
19

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his state convictions. The petition for such

20

relief is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the

21

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The filing fee has been paid. Respondent shall file

22

an answer or dispositive motion on or before December 15, 2013, unless an extension is

23

granted.

24
25

BACKGROUND
According to the petition, in 2010, in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court,

26

petitioner pleaded guilty to charges of committing lewd and lascivious behavior with a

27

minor. He received a sentence of 8 years and 8 months in state prison.

28
No. C 13-2455 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

DISCUSSION

1
2

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

3

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

4

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

5

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ

6

or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

7

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

8

thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

9

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that (1) defense counsel

12

rendered ineffective assistance; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct; and (3) the trial

13

court violated his rights in various ways stated in the petition. When liberally construed,

14

these claims are cognizable on federal habeas review.

15
16

CONCLUSION
1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

17

attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the

18

State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner.

19

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

20

days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

21

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not

22

be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer

23

and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have

24

been transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

25

petition.

26
27

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’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

28
2

No. C 13-2455 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1
2

answer is filed.
4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

3

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory

4

Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files

5

such a motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or

6

statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

7

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of

8

the date any opposition is filed.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on
respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel.
6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

12

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s

13

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

14

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

15
16

7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be
granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED: September 16, 2013
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

No. C 13-2455 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE