Hedgepath v. Madden

Filing 24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; DENYING MOTION FOR STAY AS UNNECESSARY by Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Denying 23 Motion to Stay. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2021)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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 HASSON HEDGEPETH, Petitioner, v. 13 14 Case No. 20-00858 BLF (PR) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; DENYING MOTION FOR STAY AS UNNECESSARY R. MADDEN, 15 Respondent. (Docket No. 23) 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 19 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. The matter was 20 dismissed after Petitioner failed to file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 21 (“IFP”) in the time provided, Dkt. No. 10, and then reopened after he filed documents 22 perfecting his IFP application. Dkt. No. 15. The matter was reassigned to this Court on 23 January 22, 2021, after the judge originally assigned to this matter recused herself. Dkt. 24 Nos. 16, 17. 25 On April 7, 2021, the Court dismissed the petition with leave to amend because 26 Petitioner indicated that a request for a new trial was pending in Alameda County Superior 27 Court based on a claim of instructional error. Dkt. No. 5 at 3. Petitioner also included an 28 instructional error claim in the petition and stated that the “instructional error wasn’t 1 presented to any court because my lawyer thought it held no matter despite my request to 2 raise.” Id. at 5. Based on this information, the Court concluded that Petitioner had not 3 exhausted his state court remedies with respect to all the claims presented in the federal 4 petition prior to filing this action. Dkt. No. 19 at 2-3. Accordingly, Petitioner was directed 5 to file an amended petition that included only exhausted claims, as well as given an 6 opportunity to file a renewed motion for a stay to exhausted additional claims. Id. at 3-4. Petitioner has filed a letter stating that the two claims in the petition, which was 7 8 filed on March 3, 2020, have since been exhausted, and points to supporting exhibits he 9 filed later in this action. Dkt. Nos. 20, citing Dkt. No. 14. In another letter, Petitioner requests that the Court “dismiss” the renewed motion for stay as unnecessary since all his 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 claims are exhausted. Dkt. No. 21. Then on May 24, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to 12 stay the matter pending resentencing proceedings in state court. Dkt. No. 23. In the interest of justice and judicial economy, the Court deems the original petition 13 14 and the later filed exhibits as the operative petition in this matter. Dkt. Nos. 5, 14. 15 Because no further filing is necessary from Petitioner, his motion for a stay is DENIED as 16 unnecessary. 17 DISCUSSION 18 19 20 I. Standard of Review This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 21 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 22 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 23 § 2254(a). 24 It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause 25 why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant 26 or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 27 28 2 1 II. Analysis 2 Petitioner claims the following grounds for habeas relief: (1) the trial court erred in 3 failing to give instructions on self-defense, sudden quarrel or heat of passion defenses; and 4 5 6 7 8 (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise the instructional error on appeal. Dkt. No. 5 at 5-6. Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable under § 2254, and merit an answer from Respondent. See Solis v. Garcia, 219 F.3d 922, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2000); see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 9 CONCLUSION 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 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 1. The Clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order upon the Respondent and the Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email address: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov. The petition and any exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of California. See Dkt. Nos. 5, 14. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety (90) days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 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 (30) days of his receipt of the answer. 3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 3 1 answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2 Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court 3 and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty- 4 eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the court and serve 5 on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition. 6 4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded 7 that all communications with the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true 8 copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the Court and all 9 parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 13 This order terminates Docket No. 23. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: ___June 2, 2021___________ ________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order to Show Cause; Deny Stay PRO-SE\BLF\HC.20\00858Hedgepeth_osc 26 27 28 4

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?