Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06379/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06379-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAZARIS FULLER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

W. L. MUNIZ, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 18-cv-06379-PJH 

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO 

SHOW CAUSE 

Re: Dkt. No. 7 

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Contra Costa County which is 

in this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). He has also filed a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

BACKGROUND 

 Petitioner was sentenced to 40 years to life in prison after being found guilty of 

kidnapping and assault with intent to commit rape. People v. Fuller, No. A1433419, 2017 

WL 1131822, at *6 (Cal. Ct. App. March 27, 2017). His appeals were denied by the 

California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court. Petition at 3. 

DISCUSSION 

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 

Case 4:18-cv-06379-PJH Document 8 Filed 11/15/18 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 Californi

a

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 available to 

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 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)). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that: 1) the trial court erred 

in overruling objections to the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges to African-American 

jurors; 2) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for aggravated 

kidnapping; 3) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury about a petitioner’s 

reasonable but mistaken belief in consent to rape could be a defense to the uncharged 

prior bad act; and 4) the trial court erred by not instructing the jury regarding petitioner’s 

unrecorded out of court statement to police. Liberally construed, these claims are 

sufficient to proceed. 1 

CONCLUSION 

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 7) is GRANTED. 

2. The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order and the amended 

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. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within fifty-six 

(56) 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 

 

1 The court has not included claims presented to the California Court of Appeal that were 

nor presented to the California Supreme Court because these claims are unexhausted, 

and petitioner has not indicated that he filed a habeas petition that exhausted the claims. 

Case 4:18-cv-06379-PJH Document 8 Filed 11/15/18 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 Californi

a

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 

with the court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of 

the answer. 

4. Respondent may 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, it is due fifty-six (56) 

days from the date this order is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the 

court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 

twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court 

and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition. 

5. 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). See 

Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas 

cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 15, 2018 

 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:18-cv-06379-PJH Document 8 Filed 11/15/18 Page 3 of 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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAZARIS FULLER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

W. L. MUNIZ, 

Defendant. 

Case No.18-cv-06379-PJH 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on 11/15/2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 

Lazaris Fuller ID: V-63760

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1050 

Soledad, CA 93960 

Dated: 11/15/2018 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

_______________________ 

Kelly Collins, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

Case 4:18-cv-06379-PJH Document 8 Filed 11/15/18 Page 4 of 4