Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04712/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04712-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON J. PAYNE, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

JOE MCGRATH, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4712 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at San

Quentin State Prison in Crescent City, California, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state conviction. Petitioner

has paid the filing fee. This order directs Respondent to show cause why the petition

should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted of murder after a jury trial in 

Contra Clara County Superior Court in 2002. Petitioner appealed his conviction to

California Court of Appeal. Petitioner also filed a petition for review in the Supreme

Court of California. According to the petition, both were denied in 2006. Petitioner

Case 3:07-cv-04712-JSW Document 2 Filed 01/29/08 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 2

apparently also filed state collateral challenges in the state courts. The instant federal

habeas petition was filed on September 13, 2007. 

DISCUSSION

I 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.

§ 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. 

II Legal Claims

The petition raises the following grounds for relief: 1) jury misconduct; 2) the trial

court’s reasonable doubt instructions violated Petitioner’s rights; 3) the trial court’s

consciousness of guilt instructions violated Petitioner’s rights; and 4) the failure to disclose

information regarding a relationship of a witness and a juror violated Petitioner’s rights. 

Liberally construed, it does not appear from the face of the petition that Petitioner is not

entitled to relief on his claims. Accordingly, Respondent is ordered to respond to the

petition as set forth below.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition, and

all attachments thereto, 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. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60)

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

Case 3:07-cv-04712-JSW Document 2 Filed 01/29/08 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 3

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 (30) days of his receipt of the 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

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 receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court 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 this action for failure to prosecute pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 29, 2008 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04712-JSW Document 2 Filed 01/29/08 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON PAYNE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOE MCGRATH et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04712 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 29, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Jason J. Payne

V26575

P.O. Box 7500

Lake Earl Drive

Crescent City, CA 95531-7000

Dated: January 29, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-04712-JSW Document 2 Filed 01/29/08 Page 4 of 4