Bunn v. Hedgpeth
Filing
29
ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer due by 4/16/2013.. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 2/15/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
BILL BUNN,
Petitioner,
8
vs.
9
ORDER FOR RESPONDENT
TO SHOW CAUSE
WARDEN SALINAS VALLEY STATE
PRISON,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 09-0251 PJH (PR)
Respondent.
12
/
13
Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Corcoran Prison, has filed a
14
pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Venue is proper
15
because the conviction was obtained in Humboldt County, which is in this district. See 28
16
U.S.C. § 2241(d). The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend and petitioner
17
has filed a second amended petition (Docket No. 26).
18
DISCUSSION
19
20
A.
Standard of Review
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
21
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody
22
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.
23
§ 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet
24
heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An
25
application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody
26
pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to
27
the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules
28
Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the
1
petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’”
2
Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.
3
1970)). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject
4
to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102,
5
1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring).
6
B.
7
Legal Claims
As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) His appellate
8
counsel was ineffective for failing to raise claims two through nine; (2) trial counsel was
9
ineffective for failing to raise claims three through nine; (3) testimony of the child victim was
the result of suggestive psychotherapy; (4) he was denied the right to effectively cross-
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
examine the victim due to her receiving suggestive psychotherapy; (5) he was denied
12
access to favorable evidence due to the unexplained loss of video and audio recordings of
13
the interview with the victim; (6) the prosecution’s expert witness was allowed to testify that
14
the victim had been molested denying petitioner his right to judgment of the jury; (7)
15
counsel was ineffective for failing to rebut the prosecution’s expert testimony; (8) he was
16
denied a fair trial by the admission of uncharged offense evidence; and (9) counsel was
17
ineffective in failing to request appropriate jury instructions.
18
The original petition was more than 150 pages long and contained numerous
19
subclaims and much argument. That petition was dismissed with leave to amend for
20
petitioner to present all his claims in one short document. This second amended petition is
21
127 pages and is again confusing and raises many subclaims.1
22
23
24
Claims one and two may proceed to the extent that the corresponding claims have
been deemed sufficient to proceed and have been properly exhausted.
Claims three and four are dismissed as petitioner is essentially arguing that the
25
victim was brainwashed. Petitioner has been provided several opportunities but has failed
26
to allege a proper federal claim with these arguments.
27
Claim five is sufficient to proceed.
28
1
Many pages contain two page numbers and the pages appear out of order.
2
1
Claim six is confusing and states that the admission of the testimony from a
2
prosecution expert was improper and certain statements were inappropriate and counsel
3
should have objected. Though, petitioner does not provide a further explanation. This
4
claim is dismissed as it does not state a federal claim.
5
Claim seven and eight are sufficient to proceed.
6
With respect to claim nine and jury instructions, the claim is sufficient to proceed
7
only to the extent that each specific instruction petitioner challenges has been properly
8
exhausted in state court.
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
CONCLUSION
1. Claims three, four and six are DISMISSED. Claims one, two, five, seven, eight
and nine are sufficient to proceed.
2. The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order and the petition and all
13
attachments thereto on respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the
14
State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on petitioner.
15
3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of
16
the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules
17
Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be
18
granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all
19
portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant
20
to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
21
22
23
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 thirty days of his receipt of the answer.
4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an
24
answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
25
Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the
26
date this order is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the court and serve
27
on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of
28
receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply
within fourteen days of receipt of any opposition.
3
1
5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on
2
respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner
3
must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's
4
orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for
5
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v.
6
Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 15, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
9
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.09\Bunn0251.osc.wpd
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?