Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05962/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05962-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

EUREKA DIVISION

LOUIS ARBEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05962-RMI 

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO 

SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding through counsel, filed a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because Petitioner was convicted in San Francisco 

venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner has paid the filing fee (Doc. 1), and has 

also consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge (Doc. 6).

BACKGROUND

Following his conviction for robbery, and an enhancement for the use of a firearm,

Petitioner was sentenced to serve 13 years and eight months in prison. People v. Arbee, No. 

A144931, 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6057, *1 (Cal. App. 1st Dist., Aug. 16, 2016). His 

appeals to the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court were denied. Id. at 

*18; People v. Arbee, No. S237228, 2016 Cal. LEXIS 9186, *1 (Cal., Nov. 9, 2016). 

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. 

Case 3:17-cv-05962-WHA Document 9 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 3
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

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 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 asserts: (1) that the evidence was 

insufficient to sustain the convictions, thus violating Due Process; (2) that the convictions were the 

product of a Confrontation Clause violation; (3) that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury 

regarding lesser included offenses rendered the trial so fundamentally unfair as to violate Due 

Process; (4) that Due Process was denied by the admission at trial of Petitioner’s jailhouse phone 

conversations. Liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to require a response.

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order, the petition and all 

attachments thereto, as well as a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, 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 counsel for Petitioner. 

2. 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 the provisions of 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 counsel for 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.

Case 3:17-cv-05962-WHA Document 9 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 3
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

3. 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 may file with the court and serve on counsel for Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) 

days of receipt of any opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2018.

ROBERT M ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-05962-WHA Document 9 Filed 03/23/18 Page 3 of 3