Barron v. Cate et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 8/30/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2011)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

ANTHONY RAUL BARRON,
Petitioner,

8
vs.

9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

MIKE STAINER, Warden,
Respondent.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 11-2797 PJH (PR)

/
12
13

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Correctional

14

Institution in Tehachapi, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

15

28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee.

16
17

Petitioner was convicted in Santa Clara County, which is in this district, so venue is
proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

18

BACKGROUND

19

A jury convicted petitioner of assault with a deadly weapon and found that he

20

committed that offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang. See Cal. Penal Code §§

21

245(a)(1), 186.22(b)(1)(B). He admitted a prior strike felony. See id. at §§ 667(a),

22

667(b)-(i), 1170.12. He was sentenced to prison for a term of sixteen years.
Petitioner appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed and the Supreme Court

23
24

of California denied review.
DISCUSSION

25
26
27
28

A.

Standard of Review
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody

1

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §

2

2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

3

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

4

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

5

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are

6

available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each

7

of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.

8

foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts

9

that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes
(quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon

12

v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J.,

13

concurring).

14

B.

15

Legal Claims
As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) his due process and

16

Confrontation Clause rights were violated by the trial court’s exclusion of evidence that an

17

officer used excessive force against him; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct in

18

specified ways; and (3) the cumulative effect of the above errors prejudiced him. These

19

claims are sufficient to require a response.

20
21

CONCLUSION
1. The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order and the petition and all

22

attachments thereto on respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

23

State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on petitioner.

24

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of

25

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

26

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

27

granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all

28

portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant
2

1
2
3
4

to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
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.
3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an

5

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

6

Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the court

7

and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty days of

8

receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply

9

within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.
4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner

12

must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's

13

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for

14

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v.

15

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 30, 2011.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.11\BARRON2797.OSC.wpd

28
3