Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05118/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05118-0/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 to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Lockett118osc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLIS LORENZO LOCKETT,

Petitioner,

 vs.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-5118 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The Court orders

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

BACKGROUND

An Alameda Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of murder (Cal. Penal Code

§ 187) in 2002. Petitioner was sentenced to seven years-to-life in state prison. Petitioner

appealed his conviction. The state appellate court affirmed the judgment on July 6, 2004. 

The state supreme court denied a petition for review on October 13, 2004. Petitioner filed

the instant federal habeas petition on December 12, 2005. 

\\\ 

**Original filed 8/3/06**

Case 5:05-cv-05118-JF Document 3 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 5
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 to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Lockett118osc 2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district 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

Petitioner alleges the following claims for federal habeas relief: (1) the trial court’s

unsupported conclusion that the twenty-five year delay in prosecuting Petitioner was not

prejudicial requires a remand for a full and fair hearing on Petitioner’s motion that the

due process clause mandates dismissal of the information; (2) Petitioner was denied his

Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at trial by counsel’s failure to

object to the admission of crucial hearsay evidence on the ground that it violated his right

to confrontation which severely prejudiced Petitioner’s defense and resulted in a trial that

was fundamentally unfair in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due

Process; (3) the trial court violated Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation

and due process right to present a defense by excluding evidence crucial to impeachment

of the key prosecution witness; (4) the trial court violated Petitioner’s right to a jury trial

by instructing the jury to inform on each other, per CALJIC No. 17.41.1, which was not

the law at the time of the offense and has since been disapproved; and (5) the cumulative

effect of the errors so infected the trial with unfairness as to make petitioner’s conviction

a denial of due process. Liberally construed, Petitioner’s allegations are sufficient to

require a response. Respondent must show cause why the petition for a writ of habeas

corpus should not be granted. 

\\\

Case 5:05-cv-05118-JF Document 3 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 5
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 to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Lockett118osc 3

CONCLUSION 

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

attachments thereto (docket no. 1) upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the

Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this

order on the Petitioner. 

2. 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.

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 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.

4. 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.” 

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 5:05-cv-05118-JF Document 3 Filed 08/03/06 Page 3 of 5
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 to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Lockett118osc 4

Petitioner 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: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

8/3/06 /S/

Case 5:05-cv-05118-JF Document 3 Filed 08/03/06 Page 4 of 5
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 to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Lockett118osc 5

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

Ellis Lorenzo Lockett

T-64311/ E2-243

CSATF

P.O. Box 5242

Corcoran, CA 93212

Case 5:05-cv-05118-JF Document 3 Filed 08/03/06 Page 5 of 5