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)

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: [e-mail]. 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