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 Sta te of California, at the following email address: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov; 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)

Download PDF
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: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov. 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

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?