Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-00877/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-00877-4/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 

DUNG TRAN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JEFF MACOMBER, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 11-cv-00877-CW (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

AND, ON RECONSIDERATION, 

REAFFIRMING ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

Re: Dkt. No. 24 

This habeas action was stayed and administratively closed so 

that Petitioner Dung Tran could exhaust state court remedies as 

to two claims. On January 8, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to 

lift the stay and reopen the action together with an amended 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On March 18, 2014, the 

Court granted the motion and ordered Respondent to show cause why 

the amended petition should not be granted. On May 19, 2014, 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the new claims in the 

amended petition as untimely and procedurally defaulted. On 

January 14, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss on the 

ground that the new claims were procedurally defaulted and that 

Petitioner had failed to argue cause and prejudice for the 

procedural default. 

On February 10, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the Court's Order, arguing that, although his 

"cause and prejudice" argument was not labelled as such in his 

Case 4:11-cv-00877-CW Document 30 Filed 04/16/15 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

opposition to the motion to dismiss, he did argue it. For the 

reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion for 

reconsideration and, after reconsideration, reaffirms its Order 

granting Respondent's motion to dismiss. 

DISCUSSION 

 A motion for reconsideration may be granted on the ground 

that the Court failed to consider facts or argument previously 

presented to it. See Local Rule 7-9(b)(3). Because Petitioner 

argues that the Court overlooked his cause and prejudice 

argument, it grants the motion for reconsideration. 

 The cause standard for overcoming a procedural default 

requires the petitioner to show that "'some objective factor 

external to the defense impeded counsel's efforts'" to construct 

or raise the claim." McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 493 

(1991)(citing Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986)). 

 Petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted in state 

court when, on December 11, 2013, the California Supreme Court 

issued a one-sentence denial of his petition with a citation to 

In re Robbins, 18 Cal. 770, 780 (1998), indicating the petition 

was untimely.1 Petitioner argues the untimeliness of his jury 

instruction claim was caused by the fact that he did not know of 

its existence until August 16, 2013, the date the state appellate 

court issued its order denying his habeas petition when, in the 

same order, the court granted his request for judicial notice. 

His request for judicial notice included the following statement: 

"Agree that CALCRIM 520, the jury instruction defining second-

 

1

Petitioner filed his petition in the California Supreme Court on 

September 12, 2013. 

Case 4:11-cv-00877-CW Document 30 Filed 04/16/15 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

degree murder, does not explain to the jury the specific elements 

that are required for second-degree murder in order to consider 

defendant guilty or not guilty of such offense." See Dkt. No. 16 

at 7. He asserts that the granting of his request for judicial 

notice established that CALCRIM No. 520 is incorrect.2 He also 

argues that, before this ruling, he could not know California law 

supported a finding that the jury instruction was incorrect 

because People v. Genovese, 168 Cal. App. 4th 817, 831 (2008), 

held that it was correct. 

 It is possible to establish cause where the legal claim is 

so novel at the time of appeal that an attorney could not 

reasonably be expected to raise it. Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 9 

(1984). However, this is not such a case. First, Petitioner's 

contention that new law can be established when a court grants a 

request for judicial notice is unsupported by authority. Second, 

the facts show that Petitioner's argument that he "discovered" 

his jury instruction claim on August 16, 2013 is specious. 

 On October 31, 2011, Petitioner moved for a stay of this 

case to return to state court to exhaust claims regarding the 

second degree murder instruction. See Dkt. No. 12. On March 18, 

2013, Petitioner presented to the state appellate court his 

"request for judicial notice" that CALCRIM No. 520 did not 

contain the elements of second degree murder. See Dkt. No. 16 at 

11. This shows that Petitioner knew of the claim regarding 

 

2

 The order to which Petitioner refers states, "The request for 

judicial notice is granted. The petition for writ of habeas 

corpus is denied." Dkt. No. 16 at 31, In re Tran on Habeas 

Corpus, No. H039425 (Aug. 16, 2013 Cal. Ct. App.). 

Case 4:11-cv-00877-CW Document 30 Filed 04/16/15 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

CALCRIM No. 520 on October 31, 2011, or earlier, and that he did 

not just become aware of it on August 16, 2013. 

 Because Petitioner cannot establish cause for the untimely 

filing of his claim in the California Supreme Court, the Court 

reaffirms its previous order granting Respondent's motion to 

dismiss. 

CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows. 

 1. The Court grants Petitioner's motion for reconsideration 

of its Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 

24. 

 2. After reconsideration, the Court reaffirms its Order 

Granting the Motion to Dismiss. 

 3. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, Dkt. No. 

9, he shall do so by filing a Traverse with the Court and serving 

it on Respondent within twenty-eight days of the date of this 

Order. If he does not do so, the petition will be deemed 

submitted and ready for decision on the date the Traverse is due. 

 4. This Order terminates docket number 24. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 04/16/2015 

__________________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:11-cv-00877-CW Document 30 Filed 04/16/15 Page 4 of 4