Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04630/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04630-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CECIL SAGAPOLU,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES ROBERTSON, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-04630-HSG (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On July 31, 2018, Petitioner, a California inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a pro se

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2012 Alameda 

County conviction for second degree murder and illegal possession of a firearm by a felon, with an 

enhancement for personal firearm use. By order entered October 29, 2018, the Court found that 

the claims appeared cognizable but that one of Petitioner’s cumulative error claims (Claim 9) 

included multiple sub-claims for ineffective assistance of counsel that would be more properly 

stated as separate claims. The Court dismissed the petition with leave to amend so that Petitioner 

could separately allege his sub-claims. Petitioner has notified the Court that he does not wish to 

amend his petition because he has repeated verbatim the allegations that he made and exhausted in 

state court, including the California Supreme Court. See Dkt. No. 7.

Because it is Petitioner’s preference, and because Respondent will have the opportunity to 

move to dismiss any claims that are not properly presented, the Court will direct Respondent to 

file an answer to the original petition, which includes the following claims as renumbered by the 

Court: (1) admission into evidence of Petitioner’s police interview violated his rights under 

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Petitioner’s claim 8); (2) the trial court erred by failing 

to correctly instruct the jury on causation, the absence of provocation as an element of murder, and 

voluntary manslaughter (Petitioner’s claim 9); (3) the trial court erred in permitting the jury to 

Case 4:18-cv-04630-HSG Document 8 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

have access to contents of Petitioner’s cell phone records that were not in evidence (Petitioner’s 

claim 10); (4) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to seek suppression of 

Petitioner’s police interview pursuant to Miranda (Petitioner’s claim 1); (5) trial counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance by failing to call an expert witness on the impact of methamphetamine use 

(Petitioner’s claim 2); (6) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to ensure the jury 

was properly instructed on causation (Petitioner’s claim 3); (7) trial counsel rendered ineffective 

assistance by failing to seek to prevent the jury from having access to Petitioner’s cell phone 

records during jury deliberations (Petitioner’s claim 4); (8) trial counsel rendered ineffective 

assistance by failing to ensure the jury was properly instructed on the absence of provocation as an 

element of murder under California law and by failing to request an instruction on voluntary 

manslaughter (Petitioner’s claim 5); (9) the above errors, in combination with counsel’s other 

errors, cumulatively deprived petitioner of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of 

counsel (Petitioner’s claim 6); (10) appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to 

raise the above claims on appeal (Petitioner’s claim 7); and (11) the above errors resulted in 

cumulative prejudice (Petitioner’s claim 11). See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 

2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments (dkt. no. 

1) to 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 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 based on 

the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner 

a copy of all portions of the state trial record and/or parole eligibility hearings that have been 

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

petition. 

Case 4:18-cv-04630-HSG Document 8 Filed 12/07/18 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

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 the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within sixty (60) days, 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 twenty-eight 

(28) days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 

Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any opposition is filed.

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 must 

keep the Court 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). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 

(5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

5. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/7/2018

Case 4:18-cv-04630-HSG Document 8 Filed 12/07/18 Page 3 of 3