Martinez v. Sullivan

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 10/20/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 8/21/2017. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICKY MARTINEZ,

Case No. 17-cv-04436-JSC

Plaintiff,
8
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
9
10

WILLIAM SULLIVAN,

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28

14

U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No. 1-1.) Plaintiff also moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28

15

U.S.C. § 1915. (Dkt. No. 1-2, 3.) Due to sufficient funds in petitioner’s trust account, his application

16

to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 3 at 5-6.) Petitioner must pay $5 within 28 days

17

of this Order or the case may be dismissed.

18

Plaintiff’s petition sets forth three claims challenging the constitutionality of petitioner’s

19

conviction in state court: violation of the right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment, violation of

20

effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and due process violations under the

21

Fourteenth Amendment.

22

These claims, when liberally construed, are cognizable and potentially meritorious. Good

23

cause appearing, Respondent is hereby ordered to show cause why the petition should not be

24

granted.

25

In order to expedite the resolution of this case, it is further ordered as follows:

26

1. The Clerk shall serve respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of

27
28

the State of California, with a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments.
2. Consistent with Habeas Local Rule 2254-6, Respondent shall file with the court and

1

serve on petitioner, within 60 days of service of the petition and this order, an answer conforming

2

in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of

3

habeas corpus should not be granted based on the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent

4

shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that

5

have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented

6

by the petition.

7
8
9

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 the date the answer is filed.
3. Respondent may file, within 60 days, 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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the court and

12

serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 30 days of the date the

13

motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within 14

14

days of the date any opposition is filed.

15
16

4. The Clerk shall send a notice to petitioner and respondent regarding consenting to the
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 21, 2017

21
________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2