Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05431/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05431-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH LITTLEMOON,

Petitioner,

 v

KEN CLARK, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No C-09-5431 VRW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran,

California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 USC § 2254. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. 

I

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in Mendocino County

superior court of one count of attempted first degree murder, two

counts of aggravated assault, one count of first degree burglary and

one count of participation in a criminal street gang. The jury also

found true various special allegations. On August 4, 2006, he was

Case 4:09-cv-05431-YGR Document 6 Filed 01/11/10 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

2

sentenced to state prison for a term of seven-years-to-life, plus

eighteen years and eight months. People v Littlemoon, No A114796,

2007 WL 2998976 (Cal Ct App 1 Dist Oct 16, 2007). Petitioner

unsuccessfully appealed the judgment to the California court of

appeal and the Supreme Court of California, which on January 3, 2008

denied review. Id. Petitioner also unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief in the state courts. Doc #1 at 4–5. 

II

A

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

USC § 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. 

B

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising

claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to

substitute counsel, that both trial counsel and appellate counsel

were ineffective for various reasons and that the prosecutor engaged

in misconduct by knowingly using false testimony against petitioner

at trial. Liberally construed, these claims appear cognizable under

§ 2254 and merit an answer from respondent. See Zichko v Idaho, 247

Case 4:09-cv-05431-YGR Document 6 Filed 01/11/10 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

3

F3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se

petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).

III 

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

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. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file 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 receipt of the motion, and respondent

Case 4:09-cv-05431-YGR Document 6 Filed 01/11/10 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

4

shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within

fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

4. 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 also must keep the

court and all parties informed of any change of address. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

G:\PRO-SE\VRW\HC.09\LittleMoon-09-5431-osc.wpd

Case 4:09-cv-05431-YGR Document 6 Filed 01/11/10 Page 4 of 4