Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06076/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06076-0/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON CHANDRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M ELIOT SPEARMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06076-KAW 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Petitioner Aaron Chandra, a California prisoner, filed this petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state criminal conviction. Petitioner claims 

that: (1) the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland, 

(2) the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte provide a jury instruction regarding fear of death or 

great bodily injury from an intruder into one's home, (3) prosecutorial misconduct, and (4) 

ineffective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to object to misconduct, 

investigate the victim's history of violence, misstating the law during closing arguments, and not 

objecting to jury instructions. (Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 30-33, Dkt. No. 1.)

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). The 

district court 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 application or person 

detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds 

that Petitioner's claims are not vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or 

false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court, therefore, orders 

Case 3:16-cv-06076-JD Document 4 Filed 11/28/16 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 California

Respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.

Accordingly:

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

upon Respondent and Respondent's counsel. 

2. Within 60 days of this order, Respondent shall file an answer conforming in all 

respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas 

corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file the answer together with (a) a memorandum 

of points and authorities, (b) the matters defined in Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 

(c) portions of the trial and appellate record that are relevant to a determination of the issues 

presented by the petition, and (d) a certificate of service. 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 30 

days of his receipt of the answer. If Petitioner does not file a traverse, the petition will be deemed 

submitted and ready for decision 30 days after the date Petitioner is served with Respondent's 

answer.

3. 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 § 2254 

Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall serve and file an opposition or statement 

of non-opposition to the motion within 30 days of receipt of the motion. Respondent shall serve 

and file a reply within 15 days of receipt of any opposition.

4. Petitioner moves for an evidentiary hearing regarding his claims. Petitioner would 

be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on disputed facts if his allegations, if proven, would entitle 

him to relief. Perez v. Rosario, 459 F.3d 943, 954 n.5 (9th Cir. 2006); Williams v. Calderon, 52 

F.3d 1465, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). At this point, it is too early in the proceedings to determine if 

Petitioner meets this standard. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is 

DENIED without prejudice. The Court will determine whether an evidentiary hearing is 

warranted at a later time. 

///

///

Case 3:16-cv-06076-JD Document 4 Filed 11/28/16 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 California

5. The parties shall file their Consent or Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction 

on or before the date Respondent's answer is due.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-06076-JD Document 4 Filed 11/28/16 Page 3 of 3