Sagar v. Jaime

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 8/6/2021. Signed by Judge James Donato on 6/7/2021. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2021)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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANIL SAGAR, Petitioner, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 21-cv-02379-JD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. GEORGE JAIME, Respondent. 12 13 Anil Sagar, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 14 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Santa Mateo County, which is in this district, so 15 venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). He has paid the filing fee. BACKGROUND 16 17 Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of assault with a deadly weapon. People v. Sagar, 18 No. A150155, 2018 WL 6804456, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. December 27, 2018). Petitioner was 19 sentenced to eleven years in state prison. Id. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the 20 conviction. Id. The California Supreme Court denied review. Petition at 4. DISCUSSION 21 22 STANDARD OF REVIEW 23 This Court may hear a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody 24 pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of 25 the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 26 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. 27 McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus 28 filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all 1 the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” 2 Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not 3 sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional 4 error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 5 1970)). 6 LEGAL CLAIMS 7 As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) there was insufficient 8 evidence to support his conviction; (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding the 9 deadly weapon;1 (3) he received ineffective of trial counsel; and (4) he received ineffective of 10 appellate counsel. Liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to require a response. CONCLUSION United States District Court Northern District of California 11 1. 12 The clerk is requested to serve by electronic mail a copy of this order on the 13 Attorney General of the State of California at The clerk also 14 shall serve a copy of this order on petitioner by regular mail. Respondent can view the petition on 15 the electronic docket (Docket No. 1). 2. 16 Respondent will file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within eighty-four (84) 17 days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules 18 Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 19 Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state 20 trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the 21 issues presented by the petition. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he mustok do so by filing a traverse with the 22 23 Court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the answer. 24 25 26 27 28 1 In this federal petition, petition argues that the state trial court violated the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure when instructing the jury. Petition at 5. While the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not apply in state court, petitioner argued in his state habeas petition that the trial court violated his rights by issuing an improper jury instruction. Petition at 19. In light of petitioner’s pro se status, the Court will liberally construe the claim to be the claim from his state habeas petition which may proceed. 2 1 3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 2 answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 3 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, it is due eighty-four (84) days from the date this 4 order is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent 5 an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the 6 motion, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen 7 (14) days of receipt of any opposition. 8 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 10 the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 12 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 13 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 7, 2021 16 17 JAMES DONATO United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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?