Carter v. People of the State California
Filing
24
ORDER REOPENING CASE; THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/20/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
1
2
3
*E-Filed 8/20/12*
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
9
10
CHARLES JOSEPH CARTER,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
11
12
No. C 11-1242 RS (PR)
Petitioner,
ORDER REOPENING ACTION;
v.
THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
13
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
14 CALIFORNIA,
15
Respondent.
/
16
17
18
INTRODUCTION
This is a federal habeas corpus action. Petitioner moves to reopen the action (Docket
19
No. 23), claiming that he mistakenly filed a motion for voluntary dismissal. This motion is
20
GRANTED, and the action REOPENED. The Clerk is directed to reopen the action. The
21
petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the
22
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
23
24
BACKGROUND
According to the petition, in 2008, a San Mateo County Superior Court jury convicted
25
petitioner of rape and attempted oral copulation. Consequent to the verdict, petitioner was
26
sentenced to 80 years-to-life in state prison.
27
28
No. C 11-1242 RS (PR)
SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
1
DISCUSSION
2
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
3
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
4
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
5
A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ
6
or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,
7
unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled
8
thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in
9
the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See
10
Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
11
As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that (1) the trial court violated
12
his right to due process by admitting evidence of prior sexual misconduct; (2) the trial court
13
violated his right to due process by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 361; (3) there
14
was cumulative error; (4) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for
15
attempted oral copulation; and (5) the length of his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment.
16
Liberally construed, these claims appear to be cognizable in a federal habeas action.
17
18
CONCLUSION
1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all
19
attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the
20
State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.
21
2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)
22
days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the
23
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not
24
be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claim. Respondent shall file with the answer and
25
serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have been
26
transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
27
28
2
No. C 11-1242 RS (PR)
SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
1
3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse
2
with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the
3
answer is filed.
4
4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this
5
order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory
6
Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files
7
such a motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or
8
statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and
9
respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of
10
11
12
13
the date any opposition is filed.
5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on
respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel.
6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the
14
Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s
15
orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for
16
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
17
18
7. 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.
19
8. The Clerk is directed to reopen the action.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
DATED: August 20, 2012
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
No. C 11-1242 RS (PR)
SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
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?