Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00195/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00195-6/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

No. C 10-0195 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

EDWARD SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

M.D. MCDONALD, 

Respondent. /

No. C 10-0195 RS (PR)

ORDER REOPENING ACTION;

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his state convictions. The original petition

for such relief was dismissed because petitioner failed to file an amended petition. He since

has filed one. Accordingly, the action is REOPENED. The Clerk is directed to amend the

docket accordingly. The judgment (Docket No. 30) and the order of dismissal (Docket No.

29) are VACATED.

The second amended petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent shall file

a response to the operative petition on or before August 29, 2016, unless an extension is

granted. 

Case 3:10-cv-00195-RS Document 35 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 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

No. C 10-0195 RS (PR)

2 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The petition may be untimely. Petitioner was convicted in 2006 and filed the instant

action in 2010. Respondent is directed to consider whether a motion to dismiss on grounds

of untimeliness is appropriate. If he concludes that the petition is untimely, he may file a

motion to dismiss on such grounds, though he is not required to do so. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, in 2006 an Alameda County Superior Court jury convicted

petitioner of second degree murder and the possession of a firearm by a felon. He was

sentenced to 60 years to life in state prison. Petitioner sought, and was denied, relief on

direct state review. 

In 2010, petitioner instituted this federal habeas action. The Court issued an order to

show cause to respondent (Docket No. 4), who filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that

petitioner failed to exhaust some of his claims (Docket No. 6). The motion was granted and

the Court stayed the action so that petitioner could exhaust his claims (Docket No. 11). In

2014, the Court dissolved the stay upon a motion by petitioner, who thereafter filed an

amended petition (Docket No. 18). Respondent moved to dismiss the new petition for failing

to exhaust judicial remedies. The Court dismissed the petition with leave to amend (Docket

No. 25). When petitioner failed to file by the deadline, the action was dismissed (Docket No.

29). Petitioner since has filed a second amended petition, which the Court will now review. 

DISCUSSION

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). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Case 3:10-cv-00195-RS Document 35 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 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

No. C 10-0195 RS (PR)

3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims (1) the prosecutor committed

misconduct; (2) the trial court violated his rights in various ways; (3) defense counsel

rendered ineffective assistance; and (4) there was cumulative error. When liberally

construed, these claims appear to be cognizable in a federal habeas action.

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments thereto,

on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California. 

The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

days of the date this order is filed, 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 based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer

and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have

been transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition. 

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

answer is filed. 

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of

the date any opposition is filed.

Case 3:10-cv-00195-RS Document 35 Filed 05/23/16 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

No. C 10-0195 RS (PR)

4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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. 

6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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).

7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23, 2016 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00195-RS Document 35 Filed 05/23/16 Page 4 of 4