Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-07446/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-07446-0/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)

---

Case No.: 5:18-cv-07446-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 1 

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

JAHMARI BUTLER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KEN CLARK, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:18-cv-07446-EJD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Re: Dkt. No. 1 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 challenging his state conviction. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 According to the petition, Plaintiff was found guilty by a jury in Alameda County Superior 

Court of carjacking, second-degree robbery, unlawfully taking a vehicle, and reckless 

driving/driving opposite traffic while evading police, with a gun enhancement. Dkt. 1 at 5. 

Plaintiff was sentenced to 27 years in prison. Id. 

 Plaintiff appealed his conviction to the state appellate court, and then to the California 

Supreme Court, which denied review on September 20, 2017. 

 Plaintiff filed this federal habeas action on December 11, 2018. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. 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). 

Case 5:18-cv-07446-EJD Document 8 Filed 01/14/20 Page 1 of 3
Case No.: 5:18-cv-07446-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 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 Californi

a

 Upon filing a writ of habeas corpus, a federal 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.” Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims 

 Plaintiff raises the following grounds for federal habeas relief; he argues that his 

conviction violates due process because: (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove that he 

intended to facilitate carjacking; (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his prior robbery 

conviction; (3) the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the limited use of the 

wrongfully admitted prior-robbery evidence; and (4) this resulted in cumulative error. Dkt. 1 at 

11–20. Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from 

Defendant. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 

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

thereto, (Docket No. 1), on Defendant and Defendant’s attorney, the Attorney General of 

the State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff. 

2. Defendant shall file with the court and serve on Plaintiff, 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 

issued. Defendant shall file with the answer and serve on Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff wishes to respond to the 

answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on Defendant 

within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the answer. 

3. Defendant 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 Defendant files such a motion, Plaintiff shall file with the Court and serve on 

Case 5:18-cv-07446-EJD Document 8 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 3
Case No.: 5:18-cv-07446-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 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 Californi

a

Defendant an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of 

receipt of the motion, and Defendant shall file with the court and serve on Plaintiff a reply 

within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition. 

4. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff is reminded that all 

communications with the Court must be served on Defendant by mailing a true copy of the 

document to Defendant’s counsel. Plaintiff must keep the Court and all parties 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). 

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: January 14, 2020 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:18-cv-07446-EJD Document 8 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 3