Camacho v. Rackley
Filing
7
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 12/22/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 10/23/2017. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
JORGE CAMACHO,
8
Plaintiff,
9
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.
10
R. RACKLEY,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No.17-cv-05168-JSC
Defendant.
12
13
INTRODUCTION
14
Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ
15
16
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction and sentence.1 Because the
17
petition states cognizable grounds for federal habeas relief, a response from Respondent is
18
warranted.
19
BACKGROUND
20
In 2011, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree murder under
21
22
special circumstances, conspiracy to commit murder, and participation in a street gang. The jury
23
also found allegations supporting sentence enhancements for gun use and gang affiliation to be
24
true. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to two consecutive terms of life in prison without the
25
possibility of parole, plus a term of 95 years to life in prison. The California Court of Appeal
26
27
1
28
Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 5 at 52.)
1
directed the trial court to vacate the gang enhancements on two counts, but otherwise affirmed the
2
judgment. In 2016, the California Supreme Court denied review. Petitioner then filed the instant
3
federal petition.
4
5
DISCUSSION
I.
6
Standard of Review
This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
7
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
8
9
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It
shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not
12
entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243.
13
14
II.
Legal Claims
Petitioner raises the following claims: (1) his right to due process was violated because one
15
16
17
of the counts of murder rested on a theory of vicarious liability not permitted under California law;
(2) his convictions for one of the murders, for conspiracy to commit murder, and for participation
18
in a street gang violated his right to due process because they were based on uncorroborated
19
testimony of co-conspirators; (3) his convictions for one of the murders violated his right to due
20
process because there was insufficient evidence that the murder was committed in furtherance of
21
or as a reasonable and probable consequence of the conspiracy; (4) the trial court violated his right
22
to due process by admitting testimony about his participation in gang crimes; (5) the trial court
23
24
violated his right to due process by allowing the jury to use his prior arrest on gun charges to
25
convict him of conspiracy; (6) admission of his statement to a jail officer violated his privilege
26
against self-incrimination and his lawyer’s failure to object to the evidence violates his right to the
27
effective assistance of counsel; (7) instructions to the jury not to speculate why accomplices were
28
not being prosecuted violated his rights to confrontation and due process; (8) prosecutorial
2
1
misconduct violated his right to due process; and (9) his sentence violated his right to be free from
2
cruel and unusual punishment. These claims, when liberally construed, raise cognizable grounds
3
for relief.
4
5
6
7
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,
1. The Clerk shall serve a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, a copy of this
Order, and the petition, and all attachments thereto, on Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this Order on
Petitioner.
2. Respondent shall complete and file the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form in
accordance with the deadline provided on the form.
3. Respondent shall also file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety-one (91)
days of the date this Order is issued, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules
15
16
17
Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.
Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state
18
trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the
19
issues presented by the petition. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by
20
filing a traverse (a reply) with the Court and serving it on Respondent within twenty-eight (28)
21
days of the date the answer is filed.
22
4. Respondent may, within ninety-one (91) days of the date this Order is issued, file a
23
24
motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory
25
Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such
26
a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement
27
of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent
28
3
1
2
3
shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any
opposition is filed.
5. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court
4
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of
5
Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may
6
result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
7
Procedure 41(b).
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 23, 2017
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JORGE CAMACHO,
Case No. 17-cv-05168-JSC
Plaintiff,
8
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9
10
R. RACKLEY,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
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 October 23, 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.
18
19
20
Jorge Camacho ID: #AH7931
Folsom State Prison/ 4-A3-07
P.O. Box 715071
Represa, CA 95671
21
22
23
Dated: October 23, 2017
24
25
Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
26
27
28
By:________________________
Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
5
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?