Warzek v. Chavez
Filing
2
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 8/20/12. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
MICHAEL WARZEK,
Petitioner,
8
9
No. C 10-2632 PJH
v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
FRANK X. CHAVEZ, Warden,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
Respondent.
_______________________________/
On June 15, 2010, petitioner Michael Warzek filed a petition for a writ of habeas
14
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Although the petition itself is a form petition typically
15
utilized by pro se prisoners, Warzek appears to be represented by counsel, Arthur Dudley.
16
Warzek’s status as a pro se or represented prisoner impacts the management of this case
17
on an administrative level. The court intends to treat the case as one in which Warzek is
18
represented by counsel, and all future orders and filings will be served upon Mr. Dudley. If
19
the court is mistaken regarding the petitioner’s representation, petitioner should inform the
20
court otherwise.
21
Mr. Dudley failed to provide the court with a courtesy copy of Warzek’s petition, and
22
the court’s recent review of all of its prisoner cases revealed that an order to show cause
23
has not yet been entered in this two year-old case. There have been no filings in the case
24
since the petition was filed on June 15, 2010. Given the age of the case, the court intends
25
to prioritize its resolution so that the case may be adjudicated as expeditiously as possible.
26
BACKGROUND
27
In 2007, a jury in the Santa Clara County Superior Court convicted Warzek of two
28
counts of aggravated sexual assault upon a child under fourteen; one count of a lewd act
1
upon a child of fourteen or fifteen; three counts of a lewd act on a child under fourteen by
2
force or fear; and one count of child pornography. On February 15, 2007, the court
3
sentenced Warzek to fifty years to life in prison.
Warzek appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed his conviction on
4
5
December 17, 2008. The California Supreme Court denied review on March 18, 2009.
6
Warzek filed the instant petition on June 15, 2010.
DISCUSSION
7
8
A.
Legal Standard
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
9
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §
12
2254(a). It shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause
13
why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant
14
or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
15
B.
Petitioner’s Legal Claims
16
Warzek raises five claims for federal habeas relief, including that:
17
(1) the state court’s admission of evidence that he viewed and possessed child
18
19
20
21
pornography violated his due process rights;
(2) the prosecution’s cross-examination of Warzek regarding his possession and
viewing of child pornography violated his due process rights;
(3) the trial court’s denial of Warzek’s request to admit testimony from his former
22
wife’s attorney from a related civil lawsuit pertaining to Warzek’s molestation of their
23
daughter based on the attorney-client privilege violated Warzek’s due process rights;
24
(4) his trial counsel’s failure to object to the prosecution’s inquiries on cross-
25
examination regarding his use of his computer in viewing child pornography violated his
26
due process rights; and
27
(5) the cumulative effect of the violation of his constitutional rights as set forth in the
28
2
1
2
3
above four claims violated his due process rights.
Liberally construed, the claims appear colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit
an answer from respondent.
4
CONCLUSION
5
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,
6
1.
The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition and
7
all attachments thereto upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order
8
on petitioner.
9
2.
Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of
the date of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be
12
issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions
13
of the administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by
14
the petition.
15
3.
If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a
16
traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the
17
answer.
18
Dated: August 20, 2012
19
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
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?
