Davis v. Gower et al
Filing
2
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK TO AMEND DOCKET. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/27/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
*E-Filed 8/27/12*
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
10
11
JESSE DAVIS,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;
v.
DIRECTIONS TO CLERK TO
AMEND DOCKET
B. GOWER, Warden,
15
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
No. C 12-2221 RS (PR)
Respondent.
16
/
17
18
INTRODUCTION
19
This is a federal habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a pro se
20
21
state prisoner. The petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243
22
and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The filing fee has been paid.
BACKGROUND
23
According to the petition, in 2009, an Alameda County Superior Court jury convicted
24
25
petitioner of second degree murder. He received a sentence of 16 years-to-life in state
26
prison.
27
28
No. C 12-2221 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
DISCUSSION
1
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
11
Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims the trial court violated his right
12
to due process by suppressing evidence. When liberally construed, this claim appears to be
13
cognizable on federal habeas review.
14
15
CONCLUSION
1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all
16
attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the
17
State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.
18
2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)
19
days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the
20
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not
21
be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer
22
and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have
23
been transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the
24
petition.
25
3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse
26
with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the
27
answer is filed.
28
2
No. C 12-2221 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
1
4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this
2
order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory
3
Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files
4
such a motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or
5
statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and
6
respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of
7
the date any opposition is filed.
8
9
10
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
11
Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s
12
orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for
13
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
14
15
16
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.
8. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that B. Gower, the warden of the prison
17
in which petitioner is housed, is the sole respondent in this action. Petitioner erroneously
18
also named as respondent Matthew Cate, Director of the California Department of
19
Corrections and Rehabilitation. Gower, not Cate, is the sole proper respondent in this action,
20
as he is the custodian having day-to-day control over petitioner, the only person who can
21
produce “the body” of the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th
22
Cir. 1992) (quoting Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1986)).
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 27, 2012
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
3
No. C 12-2221 RS (PR)
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?
