Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02413/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02413-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH GIDEON HANCOCK,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-02-2413 FCD KJM P 

vs.

ANTHONY P. KANE, 

Respondent. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his habeas application, petitioner asserts that there is

insufficient evidence to support his conviction for assault with a firearm. Within the context of

this argument, petitioner claims the California Court of Appeal did not have before it a particular

transcript of extrajudicial statements made by Christopher Giles when it ruled on petitioner’s

insufficiency of evidence claim, even though the Court of Appeal indicated that the statements

that appear in this transcript form the basis for petitioner’s conviction for assault with a firearm. 

Pet’r’s Mem. P. & A. at 25-31. Respondent has not responded to this claim at all. See Answer,

Mem. P. & A. at 8-11. 

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02413-FCD-KJM Document 23 Filed 12/30/05 Page 1 of 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

2

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fifteen days, respondent shall respond to petitioner’s claim, that the

Court of Appeal did not have before it the transcript of extrajudicial statements made by

Christopher Giles, as set forth by petitioner in pages 25-31 of the points and authorities submitted

in support of his habeas petition. Respondent shall indicate whether the transcript was in fact

presented to the Court of Appeal and, if it was not, respond to petitioner’s argument that failure

to include the transcript on appeal entitles petitioner to habeas relief. 

2. Counsel for respondent show cause within fifteen days why sanctions (other

than waiver) should not be imposed for counsel’s failure to respond to petitioner’s argument in

respondent’s answer. 

DATED: December 29, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

hanc2413.osc

Case 2:02-cv-02413-FCD-KJM Document 23 Filed 12/30/05 Page 2 of 2