Garcia-Lopez v. People

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by August 5, 2024. The Clerk shall serve: (1) electronically a copy of this order and a magistrate judge consent form upon the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email address: [e-mail]; and (2) by mail a copy of this order on petitioner. Signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on May 8, 2024. (svklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2024)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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
JOEL GARCIA-LOPEZ,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

9

PEOPLE,

10

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 24-cv-02253-SVK

INTRODUCTION

12

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

13
14

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state court conviction. 1 He has paid the filing fee. For the reasons

15

stated below, respondent is ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted.
DISCUSSION

16
17

A.

Background
Petitioner was sentenced in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to

18
19

a term of fifty years to life in state prison for committing first degree murder, in violation of

20

California Penal Code § 187. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2.) In 2022, the California Court of Appeal

21

affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s request for direct

22

review. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner did not file a habeas petition in the state court. (Id. at 4.) Petitioner

23

filed the instant federal habeas petition, which he dated April 7, 2024. (Id. at 6.)

24

B.

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

25
26

Standard of review

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

27
28

1

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 4.)

1

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v.

2

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).
A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

3
4

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

5

or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

6

C.

7

The Petition, when liberally construed, makes the following claims:

8

(1) police officers tampered with evidence by dissuading witnesses from testifying, in
violation of petitioner’s right to due process;2

9

(2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, in violation of the Sixth

10

Amendment3;

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Petitioner’s claims

(3) the prosecutor committed misconduct by violating an agreement regarding motions in

12
13

limine, presenting inflammatory evidence, and indicating their emotional attachment to

14

the case, in violation of petitioner’s right to due process;
(4) clothing used as evidence was not adequately tested, in violation of petitioner’s right to

15

due process;

16

(5) detectives lead witnesses by only showing them clothing that benefited the

17

prosecution’s case, in violation of petitioner’s right to due process;

18

(6) the trial judge was biased against petitioner, as evidence by the judge’s remarks during

19
20

the re-sentencing hearing, in violation of petitioner’s right to due process;

21

(7) jurors committed misconduct by “breaking down” and sleeping during trial, in
violation of petitioner’s right to due process.

22
23

(ECF No. 1 at 5, 7.) When liberally construed, the foregoing claims present cognizable claims for

24

the violation of petitioner’s constitutional rights. Accordingly, respondent is ordered to respond to

25
26
27
28

2

This claim is repeated twice in the Petition, as both “Ground One” and “Ground Eight.” (ECF
No. 1 at 5, 7.)
3
This claim lists the 14th Amendment, but it is the Sixth Amendment right to counsel that is
implicated when trial counsel provides ineffective assistance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 686 (1984).
2

1

the Petition.
CONCLUSION

2

1. The Clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order and a magistrate judge consent

3
4

form upon the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the

5

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

6

are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of California. The

7

Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order on petitioner. Respondent shall file his Magistrate

8

Judge jurisdiction consent form no later than June 5, 2024.
2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, on or before August 5,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

2024, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

11

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file with the

12

answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been

13

transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

14

petition. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse (a reply)

15

with the Court and serving it on respondent on or before September 5, 2024.
3. Respondent may, on or before August 5, 2024, file a motion to dismiss on procedural

16
17

grounds in lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules

18

Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the

19

Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition on or before

20

September 5, 2024, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply on or

21

before September 19, 2024.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1

4. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court

2

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

3

Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may

4

result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

5

Procedure 41(b).

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2024

8
9
Susan van Keulen
United States Magistrate Judge

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
4