Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04144/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04144-3/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

RICHARD STEWART,

Petitioner,

 v.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-04144 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Richard Stewart is serving 50 years to life in California state prison. In his

amended petition and the accompanying memorandum, he has stated valid claims under 28

U.S.C. 2254. The government is ORDERED TO ANSWER the petition. Petitioner again has not

supported his request for judicial notice. It therefore is DENIED. 

STATEMENT

Petitioner was convicted in Superior Court on three counts of premeditated murder upon

his mother, stepfather and their boarder. The jury also found true separate contentions that

petitioner committed a multiple murder and used a gun to commit the offenses. He also was

convicted of attempted arson and being a felon in possession of a concealable firearm. He

admitted that he had spent two prior terms in prison. Petitioner was sentenced to death on each

count but the California Supreme Court later overturned the penalty. Final judgment was

entered in February 2005, fixing the sentence at life in prison without possibility of parole. 

Case 3:05-cv-04144-WHA Document 8 Filed 01/31/06 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

People v. Stewart, 33 Cal. 4th 425, 431, 433, 522 (2004). This Court dismissed Mr. Stewart’s

first petition for a writ of habeas corpus but granted leave to amend. The amended petition was

filed January 20, 2006. 

ANALYSIS

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

A district court may entertain a habeas petition filed by someone in custody pursuant to

a state-court judgment but only on grounds that he or she is held in violation of the Constitution,

laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). A court may “issue an order directing

the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,” unless the petition is

baseless. 28 U.S.C. 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only if the petition’s allegations

are vague, conclusory, incredible or frivolous. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th

Cir. 1990).

2. PETITIONER’S LEGAL CLAIMS.

Petitioner argues that his due-process rights were violated because, in two separate

ways, he was denied the opportunity to put on a full defense. First, the prosecutor and the trial

court refused to immunize a potentially exculpatory witness, despite the prosecution’s reliance

on the testimony of an immunized witness. Second, the trial judge refused to instruct the jury

that the prosecutor but not defense counsel could immunize witnesses, an instruction that might

have explained to jurors why the potentially exculpatory defense witness had not testified. 

Petitioner also argued that he suffered from ineffective assistance of counsel in two

ways. First, he argues that his trial attorney had a conflict of interest because his office also

was representing two witnesses with interests adverse to those of petitioner. Second, he argues

that his trial counsel improperly failed to introduce certain exculpatory evidence. 

In his amended petition, Mr. Stewart has stated valid claims. The state therefore must

answer.

CONCLUSION

Respondent shall file and serve upon petitioner, by March 21, 2006, an answer

conforming to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Case 3:05-cv-04144-WHA Document 8 Filed 01/31/06 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

Courts. Respondent shall, by that date, also serve an indexed copy of the transcribed state

record that is relevant to the issues in the petition, as well as other documents required by

Habeas L.R. 2254-6(b). If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall file a traverse

with the Court and serve it upon respondent on the earlier of April 20, 2006, or 30 days after the

answer is filed. Petitioner’s request for judicial notice is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04144-WHA Document 8 Filed 01/31/06 Page 3 of 3