Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00069/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00069-2/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

No. C 14-0069 RS (PR)

 SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 7/20/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

GLENN SUNKETT,

Petitioner,

v.

WARREN MONTGOMERY, Warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 14-0069 RS (PR)

ORDER DISSOLVING STAY AND

REOPENING ACTION;

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his state convictions. The amended petition

for such relief is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent shall file a response to the operative

petition on or before October 25, 2015, unless an extension is granted. 

The petition may be untimely. Petitioner was sentenced in 2010 and the instant

habeas action was filed four years later, in 2014. Respondent is directed to consider first

whether a motion to dismiss on grounds of untimeliness is the most appropriate first response

to the petition. If he so concludes, he may file a motion to dismiss, though he is not required

to do so. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, in 2009, a Mendocino County Superior Court jury convicted

petitioner of robbery, kidnapping, burglary, making a criminal threat, false imprisonment by

Case 3:14-cv-00069-RS Document 12 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 4
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

No. C 14-0069 RS (PR)

2 SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

violence, and possession of a firearm by a felon. He was sentenced in 2010 to a term of 63

years in state prison. 

The original petition was stayed so that petitioner could exhaust some claims in state

court. Petitioner since has filed an amended petition, which the Court construes as

containing a motion to reopen. So construed, the motion is GRANTED and the stay is

DISSOLVED. The action is REOPENED, and the Clerk is directed to amend the docket

accordingly. 

DISCUSSION

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). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that (1) the jury’s verdict was

erroneous because the scientific and technological evidence supported his alibi defense,

which the Court construes as a claim that the jury did not abide by the beyond a reasonable

doubt standard and as a challenge to the jury’s credibility determination in favor of the

prosecution; (2) the identification process used at trial violated his right to due process; 

(3) the trial court violated his right to due process by denying petitioner the opportunity to

present a motion; (4) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance; (5) the use of a jury

instruction violated his right to due process; (6) his kidnapping convictions were not

supported by sufficient evidence; (7) his sentence is incorrect; and (8) there was cumulative

error. When liberally construed, these claims are cognizable on federal habeas review. 

Case 3:14-cv-00069-RS Document 12 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 4
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

No. C 14-0069 RS (PR)

3 SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

CONCLUSION 

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

on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California. 

The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

days of the date this order is filed, 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 based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer

and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have

been transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition. 

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

answer is filed. 

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory

Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 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 (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of

the date any opposition is filed.

5. 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. 

6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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).

Case 3:14-cv-00069-RS Document 12 Filed 07/20/15 Page 3 of 4
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

No. C 14-0069 RS (PR)

4 SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

8. The Court notes that the filing fee has been paid. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 20, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00069-RS Document 12 Filed 07/20/15 Page 4 of 4