Buggs v. Ducart et al
Filing
6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on December 11, 2015. (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
MARCEL BUGGS,
Petitioner,
8
10
Respondent.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
12
15
(Re: Docket No.)
CLARK DUCART, Warden,
11
14
Marcel Buggs, a state prisoner proceeding with the assistance of counsel, seeks a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Buggs has paid the filing fee.2 The court orders
Respondent Clark Ducart to show cause why the petition should not be granted based on Buggs’s
cognizable claims.
16
I.
17
18
19
20
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.
9
13
Case No. 5:15-cv-03651-PSG
Buggs was convicted in state court after a jury found him guilty of three counts of
premeditated attempted murder, one count of burglary and one count of street terrorism.3 The
Contra Costa County Superior Court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 40 years to life.4
Following an appeal, the California Supreme Court denied review.5
21
22
1
See Docket No. 1.
2
See id.
3
See id. at ¶¶ 1-2.
4
See id. at ¶ 3.
5
See id. at ¶ 4.
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Case No. 5:15-cv-03651-PSG
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
II.
1
This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on “behalf of a person in
2
3
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
4
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”6
A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show
5
6
cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant
7
or person detained is not entitled thereto.”7 Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the
8
allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or
9
false.8
III.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Buggs claims that (1) the Superior Court’s failure to instruct the jury on accomplice
12
testimony violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights to a fair trial; (2) the
13
Superior Court’s provision of an unmodified instruction not to speculate on why a person involved
14
in the crime was not prosecuted violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights
15
to a fair trial; and (3) the cumulative effect of these two errors violated his Fifth and Fourteenth
16
Amendment due process rights to a fair trial. When liberally construed, these claims are
17
cognizable, and the court orders Ducart to show cause why the petition should not be granted as to
18
these claims.
IV.
19
The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition with all attachments and a
20
21
magistrate judge jurisdiction consent form on Ducart and Ducart’s attorney, the Attorney General
22
of the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Buggs.
23
24
6
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).
25
7
28 U.S.C. § 2243.
26
8
27
28
See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431
U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).
2
Case No. 5:15-cv-03651-PSG
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
1
Ducart shall file with the court and serve on Buggs, within 60 days of the date this order is
2
filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,
3
showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Ducart shall file with the
4
answer and serve on Buggs a copy of all portions of the underlying state criminal record that have
5
been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the
6
petition. If Buggs wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the
7
court and serving it on Ducart within 30 days of the date the answer is filed.
8
9
Ducart may filed a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer, as set
forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,
within 60 days of the date this order is filed. If Ducart files such a motion, Buggs shall file with
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
the court and serve on Ducart an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 28 days of the
12
date the motion is filed, and Ducart shall file with the court and serve on Buggs a reply within 14
13
days of the date any opposition is filed.
14
It is Buggs’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Buggs is reminded that all
15
communications with the court must be served on Ducart by serving a true copy of the document
16
to Ducart’s counsel. Buggs must keep the court and all parties informed of any change of address
17
by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the
18
court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for
19
failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
20
SO ORDERED.
21
Dated: December 11, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No. 5:15-cv-03651-PSG
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
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?