Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02797/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02797-0/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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.08\Connolly797oscifp 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL JOSEPH CONNOLLY, 

Petitioner,

 v.

D. K. SISTO, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-2797 RMW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

PETITIONER’S MOTIONS TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE

(Docket Nos. 2, 4)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant habeas corpus petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on June 4, 2008. On that same day, the court sent a notification to

petitioner informing him that his in forma pauperis application was incomplete. On June 26,

2008, petitioner filed a second application, and included all the previously omitted information. 

Based on the submitted application, the court finds that petitioner has shown good cause to

proceed in forma pauperis and will GRANT petitioner’s motions (docket nos. 2, 4). The court

orders respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, a San Mateo Superior Court jury convicted petitioner of second

degree murder with a knife. (Cal. Penal Code §§ 187(a), 12022(b)). On January 16, 2004,

petitioner was sentenced to thirty-nine years to life in state prison. On direct appeal, the state

*E-FILED - 8/12/08*

Case 5:08-cv-02797-RMW Document 5 Filed 08/12/08 Page 1 of 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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.08\Connolly797oscifp 2

appellate court affirmed the judgment and conviction. The state supreme court denied a petition

for review. Petitioner states that he filed a habeas petition in superior court raising claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel, which was denied on February 16, 2007. He raised the same

grounds to California Court of Appeal, which was denied on April 19, 2007, and to the

California Supreme Court, which was denied on November 14, 2007. The instant federal

petition was filed on June 4, 2008. 

DISCUSSION

A. 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. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A 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

applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief petitioner asserts that: (1) exclusion of evidence of

the victim’s aggressive conduct violated his right to present a defense under the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments; (2) admission of petitioner’s statement to the police obtained during a

custodial interrogation violated Miranda and his right to counsel; (3) exclusion of evidence

regarding the reliability of petitioner’s statement and subsequent instructions that the statement

was voluntary violated his right to present a defense under the Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendments; (4) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly move to strike a prior

serious felony conviction; (5) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise issue of the

trial court’s improper denial of the motion to strike a prior serious felony conviction; and (6) trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to object to inadmissible evidence of the victim’s character, in

violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Liberally construed, petitioner’s allegations

are sufficient to require a response. The court orders respondent to show cause why the petition

Case 5:08-cv-02797-RMW Document 5 Filed 08/12/08 Page 2 of 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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.08\Connolly797oscifp 3

should not be granted. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (docket nos. 2, 4) are 

GRANTED.

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

no. 1) and all attachments thereto upon the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the

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

petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of

the date of receipt of this order and the petition, 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 underlying state criminal 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.

4. 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 Section

2254 Cases within sixty days of the date of receipt of this order. If respondent files such a

motion, petitioner shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of

non-opposition within thirty days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the

court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

5. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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 and all parties informed of any

change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He must

comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal

of

Case 5:08-cv-02797-RMW Document 5 Filed 08/12/08 Page 3 of 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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.08\Connolly797oscifp 4

this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE

 United States District Judge

8/8/08

Case 5:08-cv-02797-RMW Document 5 Filed 08/12/08 Page 4 of 4