Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-07116/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-07116-0/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 

RANDY ALANA, 

Petitioner,

v. 

MICHAEL MARTEL, 

 Respondent. 

Case No. 18-07116 BLF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; 

GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS 

(Docket Nos. 3, 5) 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction in Alameda County 

Superior Court. Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”). (Docket No. 5.)

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).

Case 5:18-cv-07116-BLF Document 8 Filed 03/28/19 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 Californi

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 the following grounds for habeas relief: (1) the trial court erred in 

admitting evidence of a prior conviction for murder that occurred thirty years ago; (2) the 

trial court erred in admitting evidence that he assaulted his wife thirty years ago; (3) the 

trial court erred in admitting evidence that he kidnapped and assaulted a prostitute who 

was his girlfriend twenty years ago; (4) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of 

victim’s hearsay statements alleging Petitioner had committed various bad acts; (5) the 

trial court erred in failing to give limiting instructions that the victim’s extrajudicial 

statements were admitted not for the truth of the matter but as evidence of the victim’s 

state of mind; and (6) cumulative error. (Pet., Docket No. 1 at 12-13.) Liberally 

construed, these claims are cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from 

Respondent.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket No. 5), 

is GRANTED. The previous IFP motion is DENIED as moot. (Docket No. 3.)

2. The Clerk shall serve by mail 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.

 3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60) 

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 issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all 

Case 5:18-cv-07116-BLF Document 8 Filed 03/28/19 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 Californi

a

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 thirty (30) 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, Petitioner shall file with the Court 

and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twentyeight (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. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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 and all 

parties 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). 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 3 and 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order to Show Cause; Granting IFP 

PRO-SE\BLF\HC.18\07116Alana_osc&ifp 

March 28, 2019

Case 5:18-cv-07116-BLF Document 8 Filed 03/28/19 Page 3 of 3