Filing 6

ORDER Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, Motions terminated: 5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Bryan Edward Mazza. Habeas Answer due by 10/20/2014. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 8/20/14. (jgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRYAN EDWARD MAZZA, 11 Petitioner, 12 v. 13 ERIC ARNOLD, Warden, 14 Respondent. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 14-1644 RMW (PR) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 17 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The court 18 orders respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 19 BACKGROUND 20 According to the petition, petitioner was convicted in Contra Costa County Superior 21 Court of charges of robbery and being an ex-felon in possession of a handgun. Petitioner 22 unsuccessfully appealed his convictions to the California Court of Appeal and the California 23 Supreme Court. Petitioner filed the underlying petition on April 10, 2014. 24 25 26 27 28 1 Petitioner did not name a respondent in this action. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Eric Arnold, the current warden of California State Prison Solano, where petitioner is currently incarcerated, is hereby added as respondent in this action. Order Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.14\Mazza644osc.wpd 1 2 DISCUSSION A. 3 Standard of Review This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 4 custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in 5 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose 6 v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 7 A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show 8 cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the 9 applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 10 11 B. Petitioner’s Claims As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that: (1) the trial court’s denial of 12 petitioner’s motion to sever violated petitioner’s right to a fair trial; (2) the prosecutor committed 13 misconduct; and (3) counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the 14 prosecutorial misconduct. Liberally construed, the court orders respondent to show cause why 15 the petition should not be granted. 16 17 CONCLUSION 1. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition and all 18 attachments thereto upon the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of 19 the State of California. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner. 20 2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of 21 the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 22 Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 23 Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the 24 underlying state criminal record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a 25 determination of the issues presented by the petition. 26 27 28 If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within thirty days of the date the answer is filed. 3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an Order Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause 2 P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.14\Mazza644osc.wpd 1 answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2 2254 Cases within sixty days of the date this order is filed. If respondent files such a motion, 3 petitioner shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non- 4 opposition within twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file 5 with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of the date any opposition is 6 filed. 7 4. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded that 8 all communications with the court must be served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the 9 document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the court and all parties informed of any 10 change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He must 11 comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal 12 of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Order Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause 3 P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.14\Mazza644osc.wpd UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRYAN EDWARD MAZZA, Case Number: CV14-01644 RMW Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. ERIC ARNOLD, Defendant. / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on August 21, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Bryan Edward Mazza J-97356 CSP Solano/12-125L PO Box 4000 Vacaville, CA 95696-4000 Dated: August 21, 2014 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jackie Lynn Garcia, Deputy Clerk

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?