Williams v. Pfeiffer

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 11/18/2020. (amd2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

BARTON WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 20-4776 WHA (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER,

13

Respondent.
/

14
15

INTRODUCTION

16

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

17

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction. Petitioner paid the filing fee. A case

18

management order was issued in error and can be disregarded by the parties (ECF Nos. 6, 7).

19

For the reasons discussed below, respondent is ordered to show cause why the petition should

20

not be granted.

21

STATEMENT
In 2015, petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to a term of 75

22
23

years to life plus ten years in state prison. His direct appeal to the California Supreme Court

24

resulted in resentencing in 2019. The claims raised herein were presented to the California

25

Supreme Court on direct review.
ANALYSIS

26
27
28

A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
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

1

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose

2

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

3

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

4

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state

5

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall

6

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

7

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not

8

sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of

9

constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d
688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

B.

12

LEGAL CLAIMS
Petitioner claims that the instructions on arson felony-murder were erroneous, that

13

counsel was ineffective in failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct, and that cumulative

14

effect of the foregoing errors rendered his trial fundamentally unfair in violation of his right to

15

due process. These claims, when liberally construed, are cognizable and warrant an answer

16

from respondent.

17

CONCLUSION

18

For the foregoing reasons,

19

1. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the

20

respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The

21

clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner.

22

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety-one (91)

23

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

24

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

25

granted based on the claim found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and

26

serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state prison disciplinary proceedings that are

27

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

28

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the
2

1
2

court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight days of the date the answer is filed.
3. Respondent may file, within ninety-one (91) days, a motion to dismiss on procedural

3

grounds in lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the

4

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file

5

with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within

6

twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and

7

serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of the date any opposition is filed.

8
9

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on
respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must
keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

12

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18

, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3