Ford v. Paramo

Filing 9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Respondent's answer due 10/17/2016; traverse due within 30 days of the date the answer is filed. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/4/2016. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
10

DARREN FORD,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14

No. C 16-03051 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,
Respondent.
/

15
16
17

INTRODUCTION
Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state

18

convictions. The petition for such relief is now before the Court for review pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent shall

20

file a response to the petition on or before October 17, 2016, unless an extension is granted.

21
22

BACKGROUND
According to the petition, in 2013, a Santa Clara County Superior Court jury

23

convicted petitioner of annoying or molesting a child under the age of eighteen. He was

24

sentenced to two terms of 25 years to life in state prison.

25
26
27

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

28
No. C 16-03051 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

2

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ

3

or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

4

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

5

thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

6

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

7

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

8
9

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges (1) counsel rendered
ineffective assistance; and (2) the trial judge failed to order a psychiatric evaluation of

10

petitioner or conduct a fair trial. When liberally construed, these claims are cognizable on

11

federal habeas review.

12
13

CONCLUSION
1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments thereto,

14

on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California.

15

The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.

16

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within sixty (60) days

17

of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

18

Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be

19

granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and

20

serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have been

21

transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

22

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse

23

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

24

answer is filed.

25

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within sixty (60) days of the date this

26

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory

27

Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files

28
2

No. C 16-03051 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

such a motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or

2

statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

3

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of

4

the date any opposition is filed.

5
6
7

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

8

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s

9

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for

10
11
12
13

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
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.
8. Petitioner’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 7 and 8) and his

14

motion for an extension of time to file an IFP application (Docket No. 6) are DENIED as

15

moot. His prior IFP application was granted. (Docket No. 3.)

16

9. The Clerk shall terminate Docket Nos. 6, 7 and 8.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

4
DATED: August___, 2016

RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

No. C 16-03051 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE