Starr v. Price

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 11/9/2020. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/9/2020. (amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020)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)

Case 5:20-cv-02243-EJD Document 7 Filed 09/09/20 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SHANNON LEE STARR,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 20-02243 EJD (PR)

Petitioner,

12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.

13
14

BRANDON PRICE,

15

Respondent.

16
17
18

Petitioner is a state detainee who is under civil commitment pursuant to California’s

19

Sexually Violent Predator Act (“SVSP”). Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for

20

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his civil commitment.1

21

Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

22

BACKGROUND

23

On March 14, 2017, a jury in Alameda County Superior Court found Petitioner to

24
25

be a sexually violent predator pursuant to the SVSP. Dkt. No. 1 at 15. The trial court

26

ordered Petitioner committed for an indeterminate term. Id.

27
28

1

This matter was reassigned to this Court on May 13, 2020, after Petitioner declined
magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. Nos. 4, 5, 6.

Case 5:20-cv-02243-EJD Document 7 Filed 09/09/20 Page 2 of 3

Petitioner appealed to the state appellate court, which affirmed the trial court’s

1
2

order on August 22, 2019. Id. at 37. The state high court also denied review. Id. at 59.
Petitioner filed this federal habeas action on April 2, 2020.

3
4

DISCUSSION

5
6

A.

Standard of Review
This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person

7
8

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in

9

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

10

§ 2254(a).
It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant

13

or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243.

14

B.

15

Legal Claims
Petitioner claims the following as grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) he was

16

denied due process because of excessive delay in bringing him to trial and failure to give a

17

requested pinpoint jury instruction; and (2) the SVPA violates the equal protection, double

18

jeopardy, and ex post facto clauses of the Constitution. Dkt. No. 1 at 8-9. Liberally

19

construed, these claims are cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from

20

Respondent.

21

CONCLUSION

22
23

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

24

1.

The Clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order upon the Respondent

25

and the Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the

26

following email address: [e-mail]. The petition and the exhibits

27

thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of

28

California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner.
2

Case 5:20-cv-02243-EJD Document 7 Filed 09/09/20 Page 3 of 3

1

2.

Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60)

2

days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

3

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should

4

not be issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all

5

portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant

6

to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

7

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with

8

the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the

9

answer.

10

3.

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

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

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

12

Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court

13

and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-

14

eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the court and serve

15

on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition.

16

4.

It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded

17

that all communications with the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true

18

copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the Court and all

19

parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of

20

Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure

21

to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

23
24
25
26

5.

Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time

will be granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/9/2020

________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

27
28

Order to Show Cause; Pending Motions
P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.20\02243Startt_osc

3