Chandra v. Spearman et al

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 1/27/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 11/28/2016. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AARON CHANDRA,

Case No. 16-cv-06076-KAW

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9
10

M ELIOT SPEARMAN, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Petitioner Aaron Chandra, a California prisoner, filed this petition for a writ of habeas

14

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state criminal conviction. Petitioner claims

15

that: (1) the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland,

16

(2) the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte provide a jury instruction regarding fear of death or

17

great bodily injury from an intruder into one's home, (3) prosecutorial misconduct, and (4)

18

ineffective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to object to misconduct,

19

investigate the victim's history of violence, misstating the law during closing arguments, and not

20

objecting to jury instructions. (Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 30-33, Dkt. No. 1.)

21

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

22

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

23

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The

24

district court shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why

25

the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the application or person

26

detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds

27

that Petitioner's claims are not vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or

28

false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court, therefore, orders

1

Respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.

2

Accordingly:

3

1.

4

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition, and all attachments thereto

upon Respondent and Respondent's counsel.
2.

5

Within 60 days of this order, Respondent shall file an answer conforming in all

6

respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas

7

corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file the answer together with (a) a memorandum

8

of points and authorities, (b) the matters defined in Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases,

9

(c) portions of the trial and appellate record that are relevant to a determination of the issues
presented by the petition, and (d) a certificate of service. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent within 30

12

days of his receipt of the answer. If Petitioner does not file a traverse, the petition will be deemed

13

submitted and ready for decision 30 days after the date Petitioner is served with Respondent's

14

answer.
3.

15

Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an

16

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254

17

Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall serve and file an opposition or statement

18

of non-opposition to the motion within 30 days of receipt of the motion. Respondent shall serve

19

and file a reply within 15 days of receipt of any opposition.
4.

20

Petitioner moves for an evidentiary hearing regarding his claims. Petitioner would

21

be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on disputed facts if his allegations, if proven, would entitle

22

him to relief. Perez v. Rosario, 459 F.3d 943, 954 n.5 (9th Cir. 2006); Williams v. Calderon, 52

23

F.3d 1465, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). At this point, it is too early in the proceedings to determine if

24

Petitioner meets this standard. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is

25

DENIED without prejudice. The Court will determine whether an evidentiary hearing is

26

warranted at a later time.

27

///

28

///
2

1
2
3
4

5.

The parties shall file their Consent or Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

on or before the date Respondent's answer is due.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 28, 2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3