Brooks v. San Mateo County Superior Court
Filing
23
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 8/14/2017.. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/9/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHARLES ANTHONY BROOKS,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Petitioner,
Case No. 15-cv-04877-RS (PR)
12
v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
13
14
RONALD DAVIS,
Respondent.
15
16
INTRODUCTION
17
18
Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state
19
conviction. The petition for such relief is now before the Court for review pursuant to
20
28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent
21
shall file a response to the petition on or before August 14, 2017, unless an extension is
22
granted.
23
24
BACKGROUND
The following background is based on the many filings petitioner has made in the
25
many cases he has filed in this district and others. In 2015, in the San Mateo County
26
Superior Court, petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of vandalism and was
27
sentenced to 32 months in state prison.
28
DISCUSSION
1
2
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person
3
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in
4
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
5
§ 2254(a). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall
6
“award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ
7
should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person
8
detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate
9
only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or
10
patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that he should be paroled
12
because he is owed more time credits. When liberally construed, this claim is cognizable
13
on federal habeas review.
CONCLUSION
14
15
1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the operative petition (Dkt. No. 22)
16
and all attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General
17
for the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.
18
2. On or before August 14, 2017, respondent shall file with the Court and serve on
19
petitioner an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section
20
2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on
21
petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on
22
petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have been
23
transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
24
3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse
25
with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the
26
answer is filed.
27
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CASE NO. 15-cv-04877-RS
28
2
1
4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this
2
order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory
3
Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent
4
files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an
5
opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is
6
filed, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen
7
(15) days of the date any opposition is filed.
8
9
10
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the
12
Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this
13
action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
14
15
16
17
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated: June ___, 2017
_________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CASE NO. 15-cv-04877-RS
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?