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)
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?