Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00158/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00158-1/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

MICHAEL ROGERS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JAMES WALKER, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 10-0158 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Docket Nos. 4 & 5)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Training Facility

in Soledad, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 2254. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

STATEMENT

In 2005, a jury in San Francisco County Superior Court convicted petitioner of murder,

robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and burglary. The trial court sentenced him to a term of

forty-one years to life in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction,

and the California Supreme Court denied review. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in

the California Supreme Court was also denied. 

Case 3:10-cv-00158-WHA Document 6 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 4
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

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

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that (1) the admission of evidence

of his prior bad acts violated his right to due process; (2) testimony by a witness that he feared

petitioner should not have been admitted at trial; (3) his trial on second-degree murder violated

the Double Jeopardy Clause; (4) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because

counsel failed to adequately preserve an objection to allowing evidence of petitioner’s use of a

knife; (5) the prosecutor committed misconduct by presenting evidence regarding petitioner’s

use of a knife and by presenting false testimony by a witness named Marsha Keaton; (6) the

trial court’s denial of the motion to sever violated his right to due process and “compromised”

his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; (7) his right to a speedy was violated;

(8) the admission of his prior felony convictions to impeach him was erroneous; (9) his right to

a jury trial and to a unanimous jury was violated because one of the jurors fell asleep during

trial; (10) he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in failing to obtain

transcripts necessary to substantiate a claim that his speedy trial rights were violated; and (11)

Case 3:10-cv-00158-WHA Document 6 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 4
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

the prosecutor committed misconduct in representing that they were going to conduct DNA

testing of certain evidence and then failing to do so. 

Petitioner’s claims, when liberally construed, are sufficient to require a response.

CONCLUSION 

1. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order, the order of consolidation dated January 28,

2010, the petition filed in this matter with all attachments, and the petition filed in Case No. C

10-0159 WHA (PR) that has been deemed a supplemental petition in this matter, 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. 

2. 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 based on

the claims set forth in the petition and supplemental petition. 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 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

Case 3:10-cv-00158-WHA Document 6 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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). 

5. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 4) is GRANTED in

light of his lack of funds, and his motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 5) is DENIED

for lack of exceptional circumstances or the need for an evidentiary hearing at this time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.10\ROGERS0158.OSC.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-00158-WHA Document 6 Filed 03/29/10 Page 4 of 4