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
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?