Blanchard v. Garnette et al

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 4/15/2015. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL BLANCHARD,

Case No. 15-cv-01407-JSC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9
10

LAURA GARNETTE, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Petitioner, on probation and therefore in custody of the State of California, filed a habeas

14

corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. His petition

15

sets forth a single claim challenging the constitutionality of petitioner’s convictions in state court:

16

that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s failure to seek to exclude

17

evidence that petitioner’s credit card was declined. The claim, when liberally construed, is

18

cognizable and potentially meritorious. Good cause appearing, Respondent is hereby ordered to

19

show cause why the petition should not be granted.

20

In order to expedite the resolution of this case, it is further ordered as follows:

21

1. Petitioner shall serve respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of

22
23

the State of California, with a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments.
2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 91 days of the

24

issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

25

Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on

26

the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner

27

a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are

28

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

1
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.
3. Respondent may file, within 91 days, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu

4

of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

5

Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the court and

6

serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 28 days of the date the

7

motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within 14

8

days of the date any opposition is filed.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

4. The Clerk shall send a notice to respondent regarding consenting to the jurisdiction of a
magistrate judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 15, 2015

13
________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2