Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04478/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04478-0/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)

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TREMAIN BARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-04478-JSC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his sentence.

1

 He has paid the filing fee. 

Because the petition states a cognizable claim for relief, a response from Respondent is warranted. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and other related offenses in 

1997 in San Mateo County Superior Court. Based on his conviction, the trial court sentenced him 

to a term of 27 years to life in state prison. Beginning in January of 2015, he filed habeas petitions 

 

1

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 4.) 

Case 3:15-cv-04478-JSC Document 5 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in the San Mateo County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the California 

Supreme Court. All of his petitions were denied, and the instant federal petition followed. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for a 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). It 

shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should 

not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not 

entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 

II. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims that his sentence of life in prison for attempted first-degree murder 

violates his right to due process. He was sentenced under California Penal Code Section 664(a), 

which provides a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole for attempted “willful, 

deliberate, and premeditated murder, as defined in Section 189.” Petitioner notes that California 

Penal Code Section 189 defines the different degrees of murder, but does not mention attempted 

murder. As a result, Petitioner argues, he effectively received a sentence for first-degree murder 

without a jury finding him guilty of first-degree murder, which is a violation of his right to due 

process. When liberally construed, this claim states cognizable grounds for federal habeas relief.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall serve a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, 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. 

Case 3:15-cv-04478-JSC Document 5 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2. Respondent shall complete and file the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form in 

accordance with the deadline provided on the form. 

3. Respondent shall also file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety-one (91)

days of the date this Order is issued, 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 determination of the 

issues presented by the petition. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by 

filing a traverse (a reply) with the Court and serving it on Respondent within twenty-eight (28)

days of the date the answer is filed.

4. Respondent may, within ninety-one (91) days of the date this Order is issued, file 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 twenty-eight (28) days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent 

shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any 

opposition is filed.

5. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of 

Address.” He 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-04478-JSC Document 5 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

____________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04478-JSC Document 5 Filed 12/21/15 Page 4 of 4