Johnson v. Arnold

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Petitioner's 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 7/3/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 5/4/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ADEAJAI C. JOHNSON, AP7366,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Petitioner,
12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
13
14

Case No. 17-1699 SK (PR)

(ECF No. 3)
ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,
Respondent.

15
16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison, Solano, has filed

18

a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a

19

conviction from Contra Costa County Superior Court. He also seeks leave to proceed in

20

forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

21
22
23

The petition is properly before the undersigned for initial review because petitioner
has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
BACKGROUND

24

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of second degree murder with multiple firearm

25

enhancements. On June 21, 2013, he was sentenced to forty years to life in state prison.

26

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal and the

27

Supreme Court of California, which on February 24, 2016 denied review of a petition

28

allegedly raising the same claims raised here.

DISCUSSION

1
2

A.

Standard of Review
This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person

3
4

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in

5

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 2254(a).
It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause

7
8

why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant

9

or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

B.

Claims
Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief on the grounds that the trial court

12

committed prejudicial error when it: (1) allowed a detective to testify about his opinion of

13

a witness’s truthfulness, (2) improperly instructed the jury on unreasonable self-defense,

14

(3) denied a motion for a new trial based on ineffective of trial counsel, and (4) denied a

15

motion for mistrial based on jurors seeing him in handcuffs. Liberally construed, the

16

claims appear cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from respondent. See Zichko

17

v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions

18

for writs of habeas corpus liberally).
CONCLUSION

19
20

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

21

1.

Petitioner’s request to proceed IFP (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED.

22

2.

The clerk shall serve (1) a copy of this order, (2) the petition and all

23

attachments thereto, and (3) a notice of assignment of prisoner case to a United States

24

magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate judge jurisdiction consent or declination to

25

consent form (requesting that respondent consent or decline to consent within 28 days of

26

receipt of service), on respondent and respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the

27

State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on petitioner.

28

3.

Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days
2

1

of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

2

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

3

granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all

4

portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant

5

to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

6
7
8

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 30 days of his receipt of the answer.
4.

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

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

10

Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner must serve and file an

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

opposition or statement of non-opposition not more than 28 days after the motion is served

12

and filed, and respondent must serve and file a reply to an opposition not more than 14

13

days after the opposition is served and filed.

14

5.

Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served

15

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

16

must also keep the court and all parties informed of any change of address.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 4, 2017

_________________________
SALLIE KIM
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3