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)

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 [e-mail]. 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