Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01066/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01066-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDGAR BRUNO JONES,

Petitioner, 

 v.

IVAN D. CLAY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-1066 WHA (PR) ]

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

STRIKING UNEXHAUSTED CLAIM

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 containing three claims. The first and third claims were found to be

cognizable, but the second claim was not and was dismissed. Because the first claim was

exhausted and the third claim appeared not to have been, however, petitioner was ordered to

show cause why the petition should not be treated as a “mixed” petition. Petitioner has filed a

response in which he concedes that the petition is mixed, and he requests to delete the

unexhausted third claim from the petition and to proceed only with the exhausted first claim.

STATEMENT

A jury convicted petitioner of robbery. He was sentenced to five years in prison. His

conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the California Court of Appeal, and the California

Supreme Court denied review. 

ANALYSIS

Case 3:09-cv-01066-WHA Document 11 Filed 01/11/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district 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 § 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). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally

insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court

(Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

The remaining grounds for federal habeas relief is the first claim in the petition in which 

petitioner asserts the sentencing court’s imposition of the upper term violated Cunningham v.

California, 127 S. Ct. 856, 871 (2007). This claim is sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The third claim in the petition is STRICKEN.

2. 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 California. The

clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety 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

Case 3:09-cv-01066-WHA Document 11 Filed 01/11/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

trial record that have been transcribed 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 thirty days of the date the answer is filed.

4. Respondent may file, within ninety days, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds

in lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the

court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty days

of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a

reply within fifteen days of the date any opposition is filed.

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must

keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772

(5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.09\JONES1066.OSC.wpd 

Case 3:09-cv-01066-WHA Document 11 Filed 01/11/10 Page 3 of 3