Carrero v. Holbrook

Filing 22

ORDER AMENDING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; SETTING NEW BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 2/17/2021. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 4:19-cv-06110-HSG Document 22 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LUKE J. CARRERO,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.

Case No. 19-cv-06110-HSG
ORDER AMENDING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE; SETTING NEW
BRIEFING SCHEDULE

DAVID J. HOLBROOK,
Respondent.

12
13

Petitioner, an inmate at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a

14

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction from Santa Clara

15

County Superior Court. On November 26, 2019, the Court screened the petition and found that it

16

stated the following cognizable claims for federal habeas relief: (1) judicial bias, (2) denial of due

17

process and a fair trial because Petitioner was unable to assist with his defense due to severe sleep

18

deprivation caused by the jail’s schedule for sleeping and transport to court; (3) denial of his right

19

to present a complete defense because of evidentiary rulings; (4) cumulative error; (5) ineffective

20

assistance of counsel at sentencing; (6) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise or

21

explore the above grounds as bases for challenging his conviction; and (7) ineffective assistance of

22

counsel for failure to inform the trial court of the unconstitutional conditions in Santa Clara

23

County Jail and for failure to object to the trial judge’s clear bias. Dkt. No. 6. The Court ordered

24

Respondent to answer the petition. Dkt. No. 6. On March 13, 2020, Respondent filed an answer.

25

Dkt. No. 10. On January 7, 2021, after receiving multiple extensions of time, Petitioner filed his

26

traverse. Dkt. No. 21. In his traverse, Petitioner states that he also sought federal habeas relief on

27

the two grounds raised in his direct appeal: that the jury was not impartial, and that his sentence

28

constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Dkt. No. 21 at 2, 8. The Court has reviewed the

Case 4:19-cv-06110-HSG Document 22 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 3

1

petition, and finds that Petitioner’s incorporation of his appellate brief in his petition (Dkt. No. 1 at

2

38-65) is sufficient to raise these grounds in this action. However, because the Court’s order to

3

show cause failed to identify these arguments as grounds for habeas relief, Respondent has not had

4

a chance to respond to these arguments. Accordingly, the Court issues the following amended

5

order to show cause, and sets a new briefing schedule.
AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

6
7

The Court has reviewed the petition and finds that Petitioner alleges the following grounds

8

for federal habeas relief: (1) judicial bias, (2) denial of due process and a fair trial because

9

Petitioner was unable to assist with his defense due to severe sleep deprivation caused by the jail’s
schedule for sleeping and transport to court; (3) denial of his right to present a complete defense

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

because of evidentiary rulings; (4) cumulative error; (5) ineffective assistance of counsel at

12

sentencing; (6) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise or explore the above grounds as

13

bases for challenging his conviction; (7) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to inform the

14

trial court of the unconstitutional conditions in Santa Clara County Jail and for failure to object to

15

the trial judge’s clear bias; (8) biased jury; and (9) the sentence constituted cruel and unusual

16

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Liberally construed, the claims appear

17

cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d

18

1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas

19

corpus liberally).

20

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Respondent shall file with the Court and

21

serve on Petitioner, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section

22

2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on the claims

23

found cognizable herein. Respondent need not file with the Court or serve on Petitioner another

24

copy of all transcribed and relevant portions of the state trial record. If Petitioner wishes to

25

respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on

26

Respondent within thirty-five (35) days of the date the answer is filed. Because the amended

27

order to show cause identifies additional claims, the answer and traverse currently filed in the

28

record have no legal significance and will not be considered by the Court in deciding this petition
2

Case 4:19-cv-06110-HSG Document 22 Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 3

1

except in the following ways. However, the Court will consider the state trial record already filed,

2

see Dkt. No. 10-1 to 10-9, and, if Petitioner so wishes, he may forgo filing a new traverse and

3

request that the Court simply consider the traverse filed on January 7, 2021 in lieu of a new

4

traverse.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/17/2021
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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