Briggs v. Hedgpeth

Filing 2

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 7/8/11. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2011)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7

MARQUEZ BRIGGS,
Petitioner,

8

No. C 11-3237 PJH

v.

9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden,
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Respondent.
_______________________________/
Petitioner Marquez Briggs (“Briggs”), a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of

13
14

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
BACKGROUND

15

On March 25, 2008, a jury in the Alameda County Superior Court convicted Briggs of

16
17

oral copulation by force in concert in violation of California Penal Code § 288a(d); sodomy

18

by force in concert in violation of California Penal Code § 286(d); and car-jacking in

19

violation of California Penal Code § 215(a). The jury further found true a kidnap and

20

several firearm enhancement allegations. On April 22, 2008, the court sentenced Briggs to

21

twenty-five years to life in prison, to be served consecutively to a determinate term of 20

22

years and eight months.
Briggs appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed his conviction on

23
24

December 30, 2009. The California Supreme Court denied review on April 14, 2010.

25

Briggs filed the instant petition on June 30, 2011.
DISCUSSION

26
27
28

A.

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

1

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

2

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

3

2254(a). It shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause

4

why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant

5

or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

6

B.

Petitioner’s Legal Claims

7

Briggs raises three claims for federal habeas relief, including that:

8

(1) the state court’s denial of his request for disclosure of alleged immigration
benefits received by prosecution witness, John Doe, violated his due process rights under

10

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972);

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

(2) the state court’s refusal to allow him to cross-examine prosecution witness, John

12

Doe, regarding the prosecution’s promises and provision of immigration benefits to Doe

13

violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights and his Sixth Amendment right to

14

confrontation; and

15

(3) the state court’s limitations regarding his ability to cross-examine the

16

prosecution’s expert witness, criminalist Ines Iglesias-Lee, regarding her understanding of a

17

statistical figure provided by a computer violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights

18

and his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.

19
20

Liberally construed, the claims appear colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit
an answer from respondent.
CONCLUSION

21
22

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

23

1.

The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition and

24

all attachments thereto upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order

25

on petitioner.

26
27

2.

Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of

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

28
2

1

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

2

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

3

of the administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by

4

the petition.

5

3.

If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

6

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the

7

answer.

8

Dated: July 8, 2011

9

______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

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
3