Karimpour v. Cate

Filing 2

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 5/21/2012. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

GITI KARIMPOUR,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Respondent.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-CV-6356-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

17

§ 2254. The Court will require Respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not

18

be granted.

19

DISCUSSION

20

A.

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); Rose v.

24

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing

25

the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the

26

application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

Standard of Review

27
28
1
Case No.: 11-CV-6356-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

B.

Petitioner’s Claims

2

On August 26, 2008, the Santa Clara County Superior Court sentenced Petitioner to three

3

years and four months imprisonment for two counts of child abuse. As grounds for federal habeas

4

relief, Petitioner claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth

5

Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, Petitioner contends that his attorney’s

6

failure to consult a medical expert, when the prosecution’s case relied primarily on medical expert

7

testimony, constituted constitutionally defective performance and caused Petitioner prejudice.

8

Liberally construed, the petition states a cognizable claim for relief.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ORDER
Good cause appearing, the Court hereby issues the following orders:
1.

The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order and the petition and all

12

attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General of the State

13

of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner and Petitioner’s

14

counsel.

15

2.

Respondent shall file with the Court, within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this

16

Order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

17

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file with the

18

answer a copy of all portions of the state record that have been transcribed previously and that are

19

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. If Petitioner wishes to respond

20

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

21

thirty (30) days of his receipt of the answer.

22

3.

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

23

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

24

2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the court and serve on

25

Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion within thirty (30) days of

26

receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply

27

within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-6356-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

4.

The petition includes several minors’ names in the body of the petition. Pursuant to

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a), parties may include only a minor’s initials in any filing

3

with the Court. Accordingly, to protect the interests of these minors, the Clerk shall seal the

4

petition, ECF No. 1. By May 31, 2012, Petitioner shall re-file a properly redacted petition. The

5

parties must ensure that any minor’s name and date of birth, as well as the minor’s parents’ last

6

name, have been redacted in all publicly filed documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a).

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: May 21, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 11-CV-6356-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE