Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05214/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05214-0/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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEN ORLANDO MARTIN, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

B. CURRY, warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 06-5214 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Ben Orlando Martin, Jr., currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in

Soledad, filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

His petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

The petition contains the following information: Martin was convicted in Santa Clara

County Superior Court of residential robbery, felony false imprisonment, attempted murder and

assault with a firearm. Various firearm enhancements were found true. He was sentenced on

September 13, 2002 to a term of 36 years to life in state prison. He appealed; the California

Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and the California Supreme Court denied his petition

for review in 2004. Martin filed unsuccessful habeas petitions in state court, the last of which

was denied on March 26, 2006. He then filed this action. 

Case 3:06-cv-05214-SI Document 5 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 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

2

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).

The petition contains the following claims: (1) Martin's right to due process was violated

because there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of premeditated and deliberate

attempted murder, (2) the prosecutor used peremptory challenges in a discriminatory way, see

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), (3) Martin's right to due process was violated by the

use of the implied malice jury instruction, (4) Martin's right to due process was violated by the

failure to give a modified version of CALJIC 8.72, (5) Martin's right to due process was violated

by the failure to instruct that it was the prosecutor's burden of proof to demonstrate the

unlawfulness of the attempted homicide, (6) Martin's right to due process was violated by the

trial court's ruling on Martin's motion for new trial, (7) Martin's sentence amounts to cruel and

unusual punishment, (8) a cumulative error claim, (9) the sentence imposed violates Martins'

right to a jury trial, see Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and (10) Martin received

ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in that they did not raise the additional issue

raised by Martin on habeas (which apparently was the Blakely claim). Liberally construed, the

claims identified above are cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-05214-SI Document 5 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 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

3

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition presents cognizable claims and warrants a response. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondents and respondents' attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California. The clerk shall also send a copy of this order to petitioner. 

3. Respondents must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before February 2, 2007,

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 issued. Respondents must file with

the answer a copy of the record of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously

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

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

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before March 2, 2007. Petitioner must comply

with the 25-page limit on memorandums of points and authorities – i.e., his traverse points and

authorities may not exceed 25 pages in length. 

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. Petitioner must promptly inform

the court 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). Petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case

name and case number for this case on any document he submits to this court for consideration

in this case.

6. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED. (Docket # 4.) The

application is incomplete and, in any event, petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 13, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05214-SI Document 5 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 3