Canada v. Martinez

Filing 6

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FOR RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/13/17. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES E. CANADA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-01048-JD

v.
JOEL MARTINEZ,
Defendant.

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS AND FOR
RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 4

12
13
14

James Canada, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
BACKGROUND

15
16

A jury found petitioner guilty of one count of indecent exposure and one count of annoying

17

or molesting a child. People v. Canada, No. A142597, 2015 WL 5895456, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App.

18

Oct 8, 2015). The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. Id. The California

19

Supreme Court denied review.
DISCUSSION

20
21
22

STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

23
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
24
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v.
25
Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading
26
requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of
27
habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court
28

1

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting

2

each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’

3

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility

4

of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

5

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

6
7

LEGAL CLAIMS
Petitioner’s sole ground for federal habeas relief is that the trial court erred in denying his

8
right to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Liberally
9
construed, this claim is sufficient to require a response.
10
CONCLUSION
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1.

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2, 4) is GRANTED.

2.

The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order and the petition and all

12
13

attachments thereto on respondent and respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of

14
California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on petitioner.
15
3.

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within fifty-six (56)

16
days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules
17
Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.
18
Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state
19
trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the
20
21
22
23

issues presented by the petition.
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 twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the answer.
4.

Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an

24
25
26

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the date this order

27

is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an

28

opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion,
2

1
2
3

and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days
of receipt of any opposition.
5.

Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on

4

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep

5

the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely

6
7
8
9
10

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir.
1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 13, 2017

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JAMES E. CANADA,

Case No. 17-cv-01048-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

JOEL MARTINEZ,
Defendant.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on April 13, 2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

15
16
17

Prisoner Trust Accounts Office
James E. Canada
AM1244
5150 O'Byrnes Ferry Road
Jamestown, CA 95327

18
19
20
21

James E. Canada
AM1244
5150 O'Byrnes Ferry Road
Jamestown, CA 95327
Dated: April 13, 2017

22
23
24

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4