Khek v. Foulk

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer due by 11/7/2014. Petitioner may file a Traverse by 12/5/2014. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/28/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 KOSAL KIM KHEK, 9 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-14-2936 EMC (pr) FRED FOULK, Warden, 12 Respondent. ___________________________________/ 13 14 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner, an inmate at the High Desert State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a writ of 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the Court for review 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 19 States District Courts. 20 21 II. BACKGROUND The petition and attachments provide the following information: Following a jury trial, 22 Petitioner was convicted in Santa Clara County Superior Court of first degree murder and found to 23 have personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (viz., a knife) and participated in a criminal 24 street gang. On July 30, 2010, Petitioner was sentenced to 26 years to life in prison. He 25 unsuccessfully appealed his conviction. Petitioner then filed this action. 26 27 28 III. DISCUSSION This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 1 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A 2 district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue an 3 order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears 4 from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 5 The petition alleges several claims: (1) the trial court violated Petitioner’s right to due 6 process by “excluding exculpatory evidence that Robert DeJong had told the police that the plan was 7 to hurt Nguyen, but not to kill him,” Docket # 1 at 9; (2) the admission of evidence of a co- 8 defendant’s hearsay statements to the police violated Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to confront 9 witnesses under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004); (3) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of trial counsel with regard to the Crawford issue if counsel’s objection was insufficient 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 to preserve the issue; (4) there was juror misconduct that caused Petitioner to be denied his rights to 12 due process and trial by an impartial jury; and (5) the admission of “a gruesome post-mortem 13 photograph” was error and deprived Petitioner of his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights 14 to a fair trial, Docket # 1 at 19, 22. Liberally construed, the claims are cognizable in a federal 15 habeas action. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 For the foregoing reasons, 18 1. The petition warrants a response. 19 2. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments 20 thereto upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. 21 The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 22 3. Respondent must file and serve upon Petitioner, on or before November 7, 2014, an 23 answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing 24 cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent must file with the answer a 25 copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and that are 26 relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 27 28 4. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent on or before December 5, 2014. 2 1 5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. Petitioner must promptly keep the 2 Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely 3 fashion. 4 5 6 6. Petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this case on the first page of any document he submits to the Court for consideration in this case. 7. Petitioner did not pay the filing fee and did not file an in forma pauperis application. 7 Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee no later than September 30, 2014, or the action may be 8 dismissed. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Dated: August 28, 2014 13 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?