Ford v. Paramo

Filing 41

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 9/25/2017. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/13/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DARREN FORD, Petitioner, Case No. 16-cv-03051-RS (PR) 8 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 10 DANIEL PARAMO, Respondent. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 INTRODUCTION Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state 15 convictions. The third amended petition for such relief is now before the Court for review 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 17 18 19 20 The third amended petition states cognizable claims. On or before September 25, 2017, respondent shall file an answer or a dispositive motion in response to the petition. BACKGROUND In 2012, a Santa Clara County Superior Court jury found petitioner guilty of two 21 counts of annoying or molesting children, and one count of misdemeanor battery. The trial 22 court found true various sentencing allegations. Consequent to these verdicts and findings, 23 petitioner was sentenced to 50 years to life in state prison. 24 25 DISCUSSION This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 26 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 27 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 28 § 2254(a). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall 1 “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ 2 should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person 3 detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate 4 only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 5 patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 6 As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges (1) the prosecutor committed 7 misconduct; (2) the trial court violated his rights in the ways detailed in the petition; 8 (3) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the ways detailed in the petition; and 9 (4) the evidence of guilt was insufficient. When liberally construed, these claims are 10 cognizable on federal habeas review. CONCLUSION United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 On or before September 25, 2017, respondent shall file an answer or a dispositive 13 motion in response to the petition. Petitioner’s response to respondent’s filing (whether a 14 traverse or an opposition to the motion) shall be filed on or before November 1, 2017. 15 Respondent’s reply to petitioner’s opposition, if any, shall be filed within 15 days after the 16 opposition if filed. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be 17 served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. It is 18 petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court and 19 respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in 20 a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to 21 prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: July ___, 2017 _________________________ RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CASE NO. 16-cv-03051-RS 28 2

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?