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)

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