Nguyen v. Uttecht
ORDER directing respondent to submit, by 4/28/2017, copies of the transcript of petitioner's trial and of the trial court's instructions to the jury. Petitioner's federal habeas corpus is RE-NOTED for 4/28/2017. The Court STRIKES respo ndent's 30 Answer to the habeas petition. Respondent shall re-submit the Answer by 4/28/2017, with a more thorough and less conclusory analysis with respect to each of petitioner's habeas claims. Signed by Hon. James P. Donohue. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Hung Nguyen, Prisoner ID: 748016)(PM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
HUNG VAN NGUYEN,
ORDER STRIKING ANSWER AND
DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO
SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
Case No. C16-1711-JCC-JPD
This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner’s federal habeas
petition is currently ripe for consideration. This Court has now reviewed all of the briefing of the
parties as well as the state court record submitted by respondent in conjunction with his answer
to the petition. Absent from the state court record are copies of the transcript of petitioner’s trial
and the trial court’s instructions to the jury. It appears that these materials are necessary to this
Court’s resolution of petitioner’s federal habeas claims. Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS as follows:
Respondent shall submit to the Court, not later than Friday, April 28, 2017,
copies of the transcript of petitioner’s trial and of the trial court’s instructions to
ORDER - 1
the jury. Petitioner’s federal habeas petition is RE-NOTED on the Court’s
calendar for consideration on that date.
In addition, the Court STRIKES respondent’s Answer to the habeas petition, Dkt.
30, as the brief does not cite to the trial transcript and therefore does not sufficiently respond to
petitioner’s claims. This is particularly true with respect to petitioner’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claims raised in Grounds 2, 5 and 9, and his prosecutorial misconduct claim raised in
Ground 3. Respondent shall re-submit the Answer by no later than Friday, April 28, 2017, with
a more thorough – and less conclusory – analysis with respect to each of petitioner’s habeas
claims. Respondent’s Answer shall include adequate citations to the trial transcript and other
With respect to petitioner’s final habeas claims (Grounds 6 and 7), respondent’s
brief does not explain how the sentencing enhancement for a firearm differed from that for use of
a deadly weapon. Respondent should more thoroughly explain his argument that petitioner was
not prejudiced by the imposition of a deadly weapon enhancement when petitioner was charged
with a firearm enhancement. Respondent is also directed to provide the deadly weapon special
verdict instructions that were submitted to the jury relevant to petitioner’s claims.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for
respondent, and to the Honorable John C. Coughenour.
DATED this 13th day of April, 2017.
JAMES P. DONOHUE
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER - 2
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?