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.

Canada v. Martinez

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 13, 2017

JAMES E. CANADA, Plaintiff,
v.
JOEL MARTINEZ, Defendant.

          AMENDED ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FOR RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DKT. NOS. 2, 4

          JAMES DONATO United States District Judge

         James 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.

         BACKGROUND

         A jury 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 review.

         DISCUSSION

         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 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)).

         LEGAL CLAIMS

         Petitioner's 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 response.

         CONCLUSION

         1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2, 4) is GRANTED.

         2. The 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.

         3. 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.

         Respondent 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 ...


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.