Stroman v. Davey

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 9/22/2014. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 07/23/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 No. C 14-2245 TEH (PR) JAJUAN P. STROMAN, 13 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 15 16 17 18 19 v. DAVE DAVEY, Warden, (Doc. #2) Respondent. / Petitioner Jajuan P. Stroman, an inmate at California 20 State Prison, Corcoran, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas 21 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a judgment of 22 conviction from Alameda County Superior Court. 23 seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 24 25 Petitioner also Doc. #2. I According to the Petition, in February 2010, Petitioner 26 was convicted of second degree murder and subsequently sentenced to 27 forty-years-to-life in state prison. 28 Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied Doc. #1 at 2. The California 1 review. 2 state court. 3 2014. Doc. #1 at 3. Doc. #1 at 4. 4 5 Petitioner did not seek habeas relief in The instant action was filed on May 15, II This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas 6 corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of 7 a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation 8 of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 9 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 28 It shall “award the writ or issue an order 10 directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be 11 granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant 12 or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 13 Id. § 2243. Petitioner asserts the following claims, see Doc. #1 at 14 Attachment A: 15 cause as used in the special allegation for personal discharge of a 16 firearm causing death; (2) Confrontation Clause violation where 17 trial court excused a key witness, DeAngelo Hudson, from testifying 18 at trial and instead admitted his preliminary hearing testimony; 19 (3) Confrontation Clause violation where trial court admitted taped 20 statement of a witness, Carl Anthony, who claimed a complete loss of 21 memory during cross-examination; (4) failure of trial court to give 22 cautionary instructions regarding accomplice testimony; (5) failure 23 of trial court to either correct the prosecution’s misstatement of 24 the law of manslaughter made during closing argument or, 25 alternatively, permit defense counsel to respond to the 26 prosecution’s misstatement; (6) ineffective assistance of trial (1) failure of trial court to instruct on proximate 27 28 2 1 counsel for failure to timely object to the prosecution’s 2 misstatement of the law on manslaughter during closing argument; and 3 (7) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise 4 claims brought in the instant petition. 5 Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims appear cognizable 6 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an Answer from Respondent. 7 Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts 8 must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus 9 liberally). 10 See In addition, Petitioner claims ineffective assistance of 11 trial counsel for “his failure to subject the prosecution’s case to 12 meaningful adversarial testing, and for his lack of competence due 13 to his dyslexia.” 14 too lacking in detail to warrant a response from Respondent. 15 Petitioner does not identify any errors in his trial counsel’s 16 “adversarial testing” of the prosecution’s case. 17 explain what he means by “lack of competence due to his dyslexia.” 18 Further, Petitioner fails to explain how these alleged errors 19 affected his trial. 20 assistance of trial counsel for “his failure to subject the 21 prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, and for his 22 lack of competence due to his dyslexia” are dismissed. 23 may move to amend his petition to re-allege these claims if he can 24 identify facts in support of the claims. 25 // 26 // See Doc. #1 at Attachment A. Nor does he Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims of ineffective 27 28 These claims are 3 Petitioner 1 III 2 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 3 1. 4 5 Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #2) is GRANTED. 2. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of 6 this Order and the Petition, and all attachments thereto (i.e., Doc. 7 #1), on Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General 8 of the State of California. 9 this Order on Petitioner. 10 3. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 11 Petitioner, within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Order, an 12 Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 13 Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should 14 not be granted. 15 Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that 16 have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a 17 determination of the issues presented by the Petition. 18 Respondent shall file with the Answer and serve on If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do 19 so by filing a Traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent 20 within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the Answer. 21 4. In lieu of an Answer, Respondent may file a Motion to 22 Dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory 23 Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 24 If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the 25 Court and serve on Respondent an Opposition or Statement of 26 Non-Opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the 27 28 4 1 motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 2 Petitioner a Reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any 3 Opposition. 4 5. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a 5 reasonable extension of time will be granted provided they are filed 6 on or before the deadline they seek to extend. 7 6. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with 8 the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of the 9 document to Respondent’s counsel. 10 Petitioner also must keep the Court and all parties informed of any change of address. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 15 DATED 07/23/2014 THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.14\Stroman 14-2245 OSC.wpd 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?