Francis v. Spearman

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer due by 5/11/2018. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 03/05/2018. The deputy clerk hereby certifies that on 3/12/2018, a copy of this order was served by sending it via first-class mail to the address of each non-CM/ECF user listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CARLOS R. FRANCIS,

12

Petitioner,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

13

Case No. 18-cv-01326-LB

Re: ECF No. 1

14

M. E. SPEARMAN,
Respondent.

15
16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

Carlos R. Francis, a prisoner housed at the High Desert State Prison, filed this pro se action

19

seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He consented to proceed before a

20

magistrate judge. (ECF No. 1 at 9.) 1 His petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28

21

U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

22

Courts. This order requires the respondent to file an answer to the petition.
STATEMENT

23

The petition provides the following information: After a jury trial in Contra Costa County

24
25

Superior Court, Mr. Francis was convicted of attempted murder, shooting at an occupied motor

26
27
1

28

Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint cites are to the ECFgenerated page numbers at the top of the documents.

ORDER – No. 18-cv-01326-LB

1

vehicle, shooting from a motor vehicle, and active participation in a criminal street gang. On

2

January 11, 2013, he was sentenced to 34 years to life in prison.

3

Mr. Francis appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction in 2013. The

4

California Supreme Court denied his petition for review in 2017. He apparently did not file any

5

post-conviction petitions for collateral review in state court.
ANALYSIS

6
7

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of

9

the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A district court

10

considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue an order

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from

12

the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

13

The petition contains two claims for relief. First, the petition alleges that the jury instruction on

14

intent violated due process by relieving the State of the burden of proving every element beyond a

15

reasonable doubt. Second, the petition alleges that Mr. Francis’ right to due process was violated

16

because there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction on count 7 for active

17

participation in a criminal street gang. Liberally construed, the claims are cognizable in a federal

18

habeas action.
CONCLUSION

19
20

For the foregoing reasons,

21

1. The petition warrants a response.

22

2. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition upon the respondent and

23

the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall

24

serve a copy of this order on the petitioner.

25

3. The clerk also shall serve a copy of the “consent or declination to magistrate judge

26

jurisdiction” form upon the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

27

State of California.

28
ORDER – No. 18-cv-01326-LB

2

1

4. The respondent must file and serve upon the petitioner, on or before May 11, 2018, an

2

answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing

3

cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. The respondent must file with the answer

4

a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been transcribed previously and that are

5

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petitioner.

6
7

5. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with the
court and serving it on the respondent on or before June 8, 2018.

8

6. The petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. The petitioner must promptly keep

9

the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

fashion.
7. The petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this
case on the first page of any document he submits to the court for consideration in this case.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: March 5, 2018
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – No. 18-cv-01326-LB

3