United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS (DKT. NO. 3)
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a California prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging his
state court conviction. For the reasons discussed below,
respondent is ordered to show cause why the petition should
not be granted.
was convicted in San Mateo County Superior Court of
kindapping, robbery, and firearms offenses. The trial court
gave him a life sentence in state prison. His appeals to the
California Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court
were denied in 2016. His habeas petitions in all three levels
of the state courts were denied earlier this year.
Thereafter, petitioner filed the instant federal petition.
Standard of Review
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)).
claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing
to claim on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to
support the guilty verdict on any of his convictions. When
liberally construed, this claim warrants a response.
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 California.
The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the
Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner,
within sixty-three (63) 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 based on the
claim found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the
answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the
state prison disciplinary proceedings that are relevant to a
determination of the issues presented by the petition.
petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by
filing a traverse with the court and serving it on respondent
within twenty- ...