Antoine Williams-v-Edward Borla

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, Motions terminated: #5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Antoine Williams. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 7/8/2024. Signed by Judge James Donato on 5/8/2024. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2024)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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ANTOINE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

12

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO
SHOW CAUSE

v.

10
11

Case No. 24-cv-02097-JD

Re: Dkt. No. 5

,
Respondent.

13
14

Antoine Williams, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

15

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Santa Clara County, which is in this

16

district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

17

BACKGROUND

18

A jury found petitioner guilty of aggravated sex trafficking of a minor and other related

19

crimes. People v. Johnson, No. H084722, 2022 WL 17986210, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 29,

20

2022). Petitioner was sentenced to a prison term of 15 years to life. Id. The California Court of

21

Appeal remanded for resentencing, but otherwise affirmed the conviction. Id. at 51. The

22

California Supreme Court denied review. Petition at 3.
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

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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 that: (1) trial counsel was ineffective

10

for failing to object to expert testimony that violated the California Racial Justice Act; (2) there

11

was insufficient evidence of coercion with respect to the charge of human trafficking; and (3) the

12

trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury about his good faith mistaken belief that the victim

13

was 18 years-old. Liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to require a response.
CONCLUSION

14
15
16
17

1.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 5) is granted. The Clerk shall

substitute Warden Edward Borla as respondent because he is petitioner’s current custodian.
2.

The Clerk shall serve by electronic mail a copy of this order on the Attorney

18

General of the State of California at [e-mail]. The Clerk also shall serve a

19

copy of this order on petitioner by regular mail. Respondent can view the petition on the

20

electronic docket (Dkt. No. 4).

21

3.

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within fifty-six (56)

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

issues presented by the petition.

27
28

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.
2

1

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 fifty-six (56) days from the date this order

4

is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an

5

opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion,

6

and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days

7

of receipt of any opposition.

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4.

5.

Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on

9

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

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: May 8, 2024

16
17
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

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