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)

Download PDF
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: 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

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?