Logwood-v-Baughman

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 12/5/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 10/6/2017. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LARON M. LOGWOOD, Case No. 17-cv-05728-JSC Petitioner, 8 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9 10 DAVID BAUGHMAN, Re: Dkt. No. 1 Respondent. 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. Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. His petition sets forth four claims 15 challenging the constitutionality of Petitioner’s conviction in state court: (1) improper jury instruction 16 in violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendment right to due process; (2) ineffective assistance in 17 violation of the sixth amendment right to counsel and a fair trial; (3) admittance of certain evidence in 18 violation of the fifth amendment right to due process; (4) an unconstitutionally lengthy sentence in 19 violation of the eighth amendment prohibition of harsh and unusual punishment. 20 These claims, when liberally construed, are cognizable and potentially meritorious. Good 21 cause appearing, Respondent is hereby ordered to show cause why the petition should not be 22 granted. 23 To facilitate the resolution of this case, it is further ordered as follows: 24 1. The Clerk shall serve respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of 25 26 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 27 serve on petitioner, within 60 days of service of the petition and this order, an answer conforming 28 in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of 1 habeas corpus should not be granted based on the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent 2 shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that 3 have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented 4 by the petition. 5 6 7 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 8 of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 9 Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 30 days of the date the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within 14 12 days of the date any opposition is filed. 13 14 4. The Clerk shall send a notice to petitioner and respondent regarding consenting to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. 15 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 6, 2017 19 ________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?