Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02490/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02490-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH GRICE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-2490 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANT OF LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony

in San Luis Obispo, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis and has filed other

motions.

 Venue is proper because the conviction was obtained in San Francisco County,

which is in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

A jury convicted petitioner of arson causing great bodily injury, arson of an inhabited

structure, and aggravated mayhem with great bodily injury. He was sentenced to prison for

life with the possibility of parole. He unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the

California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California denied review. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a 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. §

Case 4:07-cv-02490-PJH Document 10 Filed 06/05/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

2254(a). It 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." Id. § 2243. 

 Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland

v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). A petition must “specify all the grounds for relief” and

set forth “facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c), Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the Federal District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) There was

insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (2) his due process rights were violated

when the trial court failed to sua sponte instruct on the lesser-included offense of mayhem;

(3) trial counsel was ineffective in not discovering and presenting evidence of self-defense;

(4) his due process rights were violated by the trial court’s limits on impeachment of a

prosecution witness; and (5) his due process, compulsory process and trial-by-jury rights

were violated by the trial court’s failure to sua sponte instruct on imperfect self-defense with

respect to the mayhem charges. These claims are sufficient to require a response.

C. Motions

Petitioner has filed a “Motion for Discovery.” It would assist the court to have a

response to this motion, so it will not be ruled upon now. 

He also has filed a “Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc” in which he asks the court to treat the

petition as filed earlier than it actually was because of alleged misconduct by the state. 

Because no one has raised a timeliness issue at this point in the case, the motion will be

denied without prejudice to petitioner’s raising the arguments again if respondent moves to

dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (document number 9 on the docket) is

GRANTED. Petitioner’s earlier motion to proceed IFP (document number 2 is DENIED as

moot. Petitioner’s motion “Nunc Pro Tunc” (document number 5 on the docket) is DENIED

Case 4:07-cv-02490-PJH Document 10 Filed 06/05/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

without prejudice.

2. The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order, the petition, and

document number five on respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of

the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file a response to the motion for discovery within thirty days of

the date this order is entered. Petitioner may file a reply with fourteen days of the date the

response, if he wishes to do so. 

4. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty 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 thirty days of his receipt of the answer.

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

answer. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner may file a response within thirty days

of service of the motion, and respondent may a reply within fifteen days of service of the

response. 

6. 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\BRICE490.OSC United States District Judge 

Case 4:07-cv-02490-PJH Document 10 Filed 06/05/07 Page 3 of 3