Ware v. Koenig

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/26/2021. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2021)<hr><center>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)</center>

Download PDF
Case 3:21-cv-01069-JD Document 7 Filed 04/26/21 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DERRICK A. WARE, Petitioner, 8 Re: Dkt. No. 2 C. KOENIG, Respondent. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9 10 Case No. 21-cv-01069-JD 12 13 Derrick Ware, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 14 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Contra Costa County, which is in this district, so 15 venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). BACKGROUND 16 17 Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of kidnapping for sexual purposes as well as several 18 other sexual offenses and related enhancements. People v. Ware, No. A142909, 2018 WL 19 6718506, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2018). Petitioner was sentenced to 100 years to life in 20 prison. Id. at 2. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. Id. at 1. The California 21 Supreme Court denied review. Petition at 3 Petitioner’s state habeas petitions were all denied. 22 Id. at 3-4. DISCUSSION 23 24 STANDARD OF REVIEW 25 This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 26 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 27 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 28 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading Case 3:21-cv-01069-JD Document 7 Filed 04/26/21 Page 2 of 3 1 requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 2 habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 3 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 4 each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ 5 pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 6 of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 7 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). 8 LEGAL CLAIMS 9 As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that1: (1) the prosecution failed to disclose favorable and impeachment evidence and the trial court erred in ruling that the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 prosecution met its discovery obligations (Petition at 7, 65); (2) his rights were denied in a hearing 12 regarding conflicts between a codefendant’s attorney and the prosecution and the violation of a 13 joint defense agreement (Petition at 70); (3) the trial court issued erroneous jury instructions 14 regarding the victim and consent and intoxication (Petition at 80); (4) the jury repeatedly observed 15 him in shackles and the trial court erred by not declaring a mistrial and by issuing erroneous jury 16 instructions regarding shackling (Petition at 83, 91); (5) the trial court erred by failing to inquire of 17 jurors who observed him in shackles and also heard a deputy district attorney discussing the case 18 in the hallway (Petition at 93); (6) there was juror misconduct (Petition at 95); (7) the trial court 19 erred in in denying expert evidence presented by the defense (Petition at 98); and (8) and the trial 20 court erred by issuing a jury instruction that improperly bolstered the victim’s credibility (Petition 21 at 105). Liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to require a response. CONCLUSION 22 1. 23 The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED. The clerk 24 shall serve by electronic mail a copy of this order on the Attorney General of the State of 25 California at SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on 26 27 28 1 The Court has grouped similar claims together. 2 Case 3:21-cv-01069-JD Document 7 Filed 04/26/21 Page 3 of 3 1 petitioner by regular mail. Respondent can view the petition on the electronic docket (Docket No. 2 1). 3 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within sixty (60) days 4 of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules 5 Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 6 Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state 7 trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the 8 issues presented by the petition. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 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 twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the answer. 3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 12 answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 13 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, it is due sixty (60) days from the date this order is 14 entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an 15 opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, 16 and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days 17 of receipt of any opposition. 18 4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on 19 respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep 20 the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely 21 fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 22 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 23 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 26, 2021 26 27 JAMES DONATO United States District Judge 28 3

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?