Brown v. Paramo

Filing 11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 11/7/17. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MATTHEW AARON BROWN, Petitioner, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 17-cv-03948-JD ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE v. Docket No. 2 PARAMO, Respondent. 12 13 14 Matthew Aaron Brown, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. BACKGROUND 15 16 A jury found petitioner guilty of second degree murder. People v. Brown, No. A144660, 17 2016 WL 6744989, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2016). The California Court of Appeal affirmed 18 the conviction. Id. at 8. The California Supreme Court denied review. Petition at 16. DISCUSSION 19 20 21 STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 22 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 23 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 24 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 25 requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 26 habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 27 28 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 1 each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ 2 pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 3 of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 4 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). 5 LEGAL CLAIMS 6 As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) the trial court erred by 7 8 9 precluding him from testifying about his knowledge of the victim’s violent acts against third parties; and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that petitioner’s testimony about the victim’s violent acts was proper. Liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to require a 10 response. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. The Sixth Amendment’s right to 12 counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th 13 14 Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) provides that in habeas cases, whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require”, representation may be provided for any 15 financially eligible person. Petitioner has presented his claims adequately, and they are not 16 particularly complex. 17 CONCLUSION 18 1. The motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 2) is DENIED. 2. The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order and the petition and all 19 20 attachments thereto on respondent and respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of 21 California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 22 3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within fifty-six (56) 23 days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules 24 Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 25 Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state 26 trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the 27 issues presented by the petition. 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 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 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 is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition. 5. 7 8 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. Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely 9 fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 10 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: November 7, 2017 14 15 16 JAMES DONATO United States District Judge 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 MATTHEW AARON BROWN, Case No. 17-cv-03948-JD Plaintiff, 5 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 7 PARAMO, Defendant. 8 9 10 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 That on November 7, 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. 16 17 18 Matthew Aaron Brown ID: AW-1636 R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility D-19-127 480 Alta Rd. San Diego, CA 92179 19 20 21 Dated: November 7, 2017 22 23 Susan Y. Soong Clerk, United States District Court 24 25 26 27 By:________________________ LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the Honorable JAMES DONATO 28 4

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?