United States District Court, N.D. California
JAMES E. CANADA, Plaintiff,
JOEL MARTINEZ, Defendant.
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND FOR RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DKT. NOS. 2,
DONATO United States District Judge
Canada, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also
applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
found petitioner guilty of one count of indecent exposure and
one count of annoying or molesting a child. People v.
Canada, No. A142597, 2015 WL 5895456, at *1 (Cal.Ct.App.
Oct 8, 2015). The California Court of Appeal affirmed the
conviction. Id. The California Supreme Court denied
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
available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts
supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 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)).
sole ground for federal habeas relief is that the trial court
erred in denying his right to represent himself pursuant to
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
Liberally construed, this claim is sufficient to require a
Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2, 4) is
clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order and
the petition and all attachments thereto on respondent and
respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State
of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this
order on petitioner.
Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner,
within fifty-six (56) days of the issuance of this order, an
answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of
habeas corpus should not be granted.
shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of
all portions of the state trial record that have been
transcribed previously and that are relevant to a