Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02242/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02242-0/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

PETER WILSON, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-2242 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docket No. 2)

INTRODUCTION

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

Creek State Prison in Ione, California, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28

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

has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which is now GRANTED (docket

no. 2). This order directs Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be

granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted after trial in Santa Clara

County Superior Court of first degree murder and a weapon violation and sentenced to

life without the possibility of parole and a consecutive one year term in state prison. 

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal which denied the

appeal in 2000. The Supreme Court of California denied his petition in 2004. Petitioner

filed the instant federal habeas petition on March 30, 2006. 

Case 3:06-cv-02242-JSW Document 3 Filed 08/31/06 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

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 ground for relief: (1) the Court improperly

admitted DNA evidence in violation of Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial;

(2) Petitioner’s right to due process was violated by the trial court’s admission of

perjured testimony, prosecutorial misconduct in offering certain testimony from the

witness and ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to properly object to its

admission; (3) the Court violated Petitioner’s right to a fair trial in admitting certain

evidence; (4) the Court improperly excluded certain exculpatory evidence from the crime

scene; and (5) cumulative error. Petitioner’s claim regarding a Fourth Amendment

violation by the trial court in failing to suppress evidence is barred by Stone v. Powell,

428 U.S. 465, 481-82, 494 (1976), as Petitioner does not contend that the state did not

provide an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims in state court. 

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

is not entitled to relief as to Petitioner’s other 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

Case 3:06-cv-02242-JSW Document 3 Filed 08/31/06 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

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. 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: August 31, 2006 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02242-JSW Document 3 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 3