Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00654/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00654-0/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)

---

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

1

 Petitioner has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

(Docket No. 3.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCEL PERRY,

Petitioner,

v.

CLARK DUCART,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 15-0654 NC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Marcel Perry, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions from Alameda County Superior Court.1

Petitioner has paid the filing fee. His petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. For the reasons stated below,

the Court orders Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND 

In 2010, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of murder and related offenses. In 2013, the

California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review. The instant

action was filed on February 11, 2015.

DISCUSSION

Case 3:15-cv-00654-CRB Document 4 Filed 05/19/15 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

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). A

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th

Cir. 1990). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner claims: (1) the prosecutor unfairly excluded

jurors based on race, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and (2) the prosecutor

committed misconduct during closing argument, and the trial court failed to issue a curative

instruction. Liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to warrant an answer from Respondent.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to 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. Respondent shall file his Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction consent form no later than thirty (30) days from the filing date of this Order.

2. Respondent is directed to file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety (90)

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 found cognizable herein. Respondent must 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. 

Case 3:15-cv-00654-CRB Document 4 Filed 05/19/15 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

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with the

Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within ninety (90) 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 must 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 must file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply

within fourteen (14) 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 pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00654-CRB Document 4 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 3