Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07136/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07136-0/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 

MARVIN PROFITT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ROB HOWE, et al., 

Respondents. 

Case No. 17-cv-07136-JD 

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO 

SHOW CAUSE 

Marvin Profitt, a former prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend and 

petitioner has filed an amended petition. 

BACKGROUND 

A jury found petitioner guilty of five counts related to several felony and misdemeanor 

charges for Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”). People v. Profitt, 8 Cal. App. 5th 1255, 1258 

(Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2017). The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. Id. The 

California Supreme Court denied review. Docket No 1 at 3. Petitioner completed his sentence 

and supervised release on July 10, 2017. Id. He states that he still has to pay restitution and 

complete a nine-month DUI course. Id. 

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-07136-JD Document 11 Filed 08/23/18 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

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 that: (1) trial counsel was ineffective 

due to his closing arguments; and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file motions to 

dismiss pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 

51, 58 (1988). Liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The clerk shall serve by regular 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 and respondent Rob Howe, Chief Probation officer for Lake County, who has already 

appeared in this action. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on 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 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 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. 

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 

Case 3:17-cv-07136-JD Document 11 Filed 08/23/18 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

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. 

4. 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: August 23, 2018 

 

JAMES DONATO 

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-07136-JD Document 11 Filed 08/23/18 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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARVIN PROFITT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROB HOWE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 17-cv-07136-JD 

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 August 23, 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. 

Marvin Profitt 

4678 Inyo Way

Kelseyville, CA 95451 

Dated: August 23, 2018 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO 

Case 3:17-cv-07136-JD Document 11 Filed 08/23/18 Page 4 of 4