Sharma v. Spearman

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 9/18/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 7/20/2018. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NATEEL SHARMA,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

9
10

M. ELIOT SPEARMAN,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-03531-SK

Defendant.

Regarding Docket No. 1

12
Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated,1 has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

13
14

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from Alameda County Superior Court.
BACKGROUND

15

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon.2

16
17

He was sentenced on October 31, 2014.
Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal and the

18
19

Supreme Court of California, which on March 28, 2017 denied review of a petition allegedly

20

raising the claims raised here.
DISCUSSION

21
22
23
24

A.

Standard of Review.
This court may entertain a petition for a 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

25
26
27
28

1
2

Plaintiff does not state where he is incarcerated.
It is not clear exactly what crimes Plaintiff was convicted of or for how long he was
sentenced. Plaintiff only cites to the penal codes without any description of the crimes. His
citations have typos. Plaintiff describes the number of years he was sentenced to, but then states
that all sentences have been stayed. (Dkt. 1 at 10-11.)

1

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

2
3

writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person

4

detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243.

5

B.

Claims.
Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising several claims for ineffective

6
7

assistance of counsel. Liberally construed, the claims appear cognizable under § 2254 and merit

8

an answer from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal

9

courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).
CONCLUSION

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

12

1.

The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition and all

13

attachments thereto upon the California Attorney General’s Office, 455 Golden Gate Avenue,

14

Suite 11000, San Francisco, CA 94102.
2.

15

Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of the

16

issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

17

Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.

18

Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state

19

trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the

20

issues presented by the petition.
3.

21
22

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 his receipt of the answer.
4.

23

Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an

24

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

25

2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner must serve and file an opposition or

26

statement of non-opposition not more than 28 days after the motion is served and filed, and

27

///

28

///
2

1

respondent must serve and file a reply to an opposition not more than 14 days after the opposition

2

is served and filed.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 20, 2018
______________________________________
SALLIE KIM
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3