Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05749/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05749-0/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

CLAUDE L. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. GOWER,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05749-JSC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Dkt. Nos. 3, 4

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 conviction and 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 murder in 2012 in Contra Costa County Superior Court. Based 

on his conviction, the trial court sentenced him to a term of 50 years to life in state prison. The 

California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in 2013, and the California Supreme Court 

denied a petition for review in 2015. Thereafter he filed the instant federal petition. 

 

1

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

U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 2.) 

Case 4:15-cv-05749-HSG Document 5 Filed 01/28/16 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

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 (1) the exclusion of evidence violated his right to due process and his 

right to present a defense; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument, in 

violation of Petitioner’s right to due process; and (3) the cumulative effect of the above errors 

rendered his trial fundamentally unfair in violation of his right to due process. When liberally 

construed, these claims state 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. 

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. 

Case 4:15-cv-05749-HSG Document 5 Filed 01/28/16 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

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). 

6. Petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 3) is 

GRANTED in light of Petitioner’s lack of funds. 

//

//

Case 4:15-cv-05749-HSG Document 5 Filed 01/28/16 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

7. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED. There is no 

right to counsel in a federal habeas proceeding, and petitioner has thus far been able to present his 

claims adequately. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-05749-HSG Document 5 Filed 01/28/16 Page 4 of 4