Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Eison v. Swarthout

United States District Court, N.D. California

February 4, 2014

ROBERT L. EISON, Petitioner,
v.
GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. For the reasons discussed below, respondent is ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

STATEMENT

Petitioner was convicted in 2011 of various sex offenses against a minor. His sentence of 22 years and four months in state prison included an enhancement for great bodily injury. The judgment was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review.

ANALYSIS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court must "specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified." Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. "[N]otice' pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.'" Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Petitioner claims that there was insufficient evidence to support the enhancement of great bodily injury. When liberally construed, this claim is sufficient to warrant an answer from respondent.

CONCLUSION

1. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of Claifornia. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner.

2. Respondent shalll file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety-one days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of te Rules governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on the claim found cognizable above, Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial recrod that have been transcriobed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.