Turner v. Baughman

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments thereto, on respondent and respondents counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order o n petitioner. Turner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is consequently DENIED as moot. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 3/20/2017. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 01/17/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/17/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 GIL EDWARD TURNER, Petitioner, v. Case No. 16-cv-06495-WHO (PR) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DAVID BAUGHMAN, Respondent. Dkt. No. 2 16 17 18 INTRODUCTION Petitioner Gil Edward Turner seeks federal habeas relief from his state convictions. 19 The petition for such relief has been reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the 20 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and has been found to state cognizable claims. 21 Accordingly, respondent shall file an answer or dispositive motion in response to the 22 habeas petition on or before March 20, 2017, unless an extension is granted. 23 BACKGROUND 24 According to the petition, in 2014 a Contra Costa County Superior Court jury 25 convicted Turner of first degree murder, consequent to which he was sentenced to 75 years 26 to life in state prison. 27 28 1 2 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 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). 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 As grounds for federal habeas relief, Turner claims that (1) defense counsel 12 rendered ineffective assistance; (2) the trial court violated his right to due process by 13 admitting prejudicial evidence and failing to dismiss the charges at the close of the 14 prosecution’s case; (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct; and (4) there was cumulative 15 error. When liberally construed, these claims are cognizable on federal habeas review. 16 CONCLUSION 17 1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments 18 thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the State of 19 California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 20 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within sixty (60) 21 days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the 22 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should 23 not be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the 24 answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously 25 have been transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by 26 the petition. 27 28 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’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the 2 1 2 answer is filed. 4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within sixty (60) days of the date this 3 order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory 4 Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent 5 files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an 6 opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is 7 filed, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen 8 (15) days of the date any opposition is filed. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 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 12 Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the 13 Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this 14 action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 15 16 17 18 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. The Court notes that the filing fee has been paid. Turner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is consequently DENIED as moot. 19 9. The Clerk shall terminate Dkt. No. 2. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: January 17, 2017 _________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 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?