Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03925/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03925-0/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—No. C-04-03925 RMW

JAH

E-FILED on 1/17/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROCKY RYAN HUNT,

Petitioner,

v.

A.A. LAMARQUE, Warden,

Respondent.

No. C-04-03925 RMW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

[Re Docket No. 1]

Rocky Ryan Hunt petitions for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The

court will require respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

On May 7, 1998, Hunt, after drinking heavily, got into a fight with Frank Paul. Paul fell to

the ground, after which Hunt continued beating him. The police found Paul alongside a nearby

creek; Paul was hospitalized but died from his injuries. Hunt was charged with Paul's murder. At

Hunt's trial, after both sides rested, Justin Coppedge appeared at the courthouse to testify that he had

seen other people beating Paul after Hunt. The trial judge denied Hunt's motion to reopen the case,

finding the timing of Coppedge's appearance suspicious. A jury found Hunt guilty of first-degree

murder, and the court sentenced him to twenty-five years to life. The California Court of Appeal

Case 5:04-cv-03925-RMW Document 3 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 4
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—No. C-04-03925 RMW

JAH 2

denied Hunt's appeal and his petition for habeas corpus. The California Supreme Court denied

Hunt's petitions for discretionary review and habeas corpus on September 17, 2003. Hunt filed his

petition for habeas corpus in this court on September 17, 2004. 

II. ANALYSIS

1. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus on "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. 

2. Petitioner’s Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that the exclusion of Coppedge's

testimony violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because it denied him of

his rights to present exculpatory evidence and witnesses on his behalf or resulted from ineffective

assistance of counsel. The court will require respondent to show cause why the petition for a writ of

habeas corpus should not be granted. 

III. ORDER 

Respondent is ordered to show cause why petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus,

filed on September 17, 2004, should not be granted. 

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

upon the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of

California. 

 2. Respondent shall file with the court, 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 a copy of all portions of the state record that have been transcribed previously and

that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. If petitioner

Case 5:04-cv-03925-RMW Document 3 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 4
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—No. C-04-03925 RMW

JAH 3

wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse within thirty days of the

filing 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

within sixty days of the issuance of this order. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner

shall file with the court an opposition or a statement of non-opposition within thirty days of

the filing of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court a reply within fifteen days of

the filing of any opposition.

DATED: 1/17/06 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03925-RMW Document 3 Filed 01/17/06 Page 3 of 4
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—No. C-04-03925 RMW

JAH 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Petitioner:

Walter K. Pyle walt@wfkplaw.com 

Counsel for Respondent:

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 1/17/06 /s/ JH 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:04-cv-03925-RMW Document 3 Filed 01/17/06 Page 4 of 4