Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01615/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01615-1/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

DJOLIBA NARCISSE,

Petitioner,

v.

E. VALENZUELA,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-01615-EMC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Docket No. 9

I. INTRODUCTION

Djoliba Narcisse filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

more than three years ago. Little progress toward its resolution has occurred. Having waited in 

vain for a year for a second amended petition, the Court now moves the case beyond the pleading 

stage and orders Respondent to show cause why relief should not be granted on the three 

cognizable claims in the amended petition.

II. BACKGROUND

Mr. Narcisse’s amended petition provides the following information: Following a jury 

trial in Contra Costa County Superior Court, he was convicted of mayhem and assault with a 

deadly weapon. Sentence enhancement allegations were found true. On November 9, 2012, he 

was sentenced to a total of nine years in state prison. 

He appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction 2013 and the 

California Supreme Court denied his petition for review in 2014. 

Mr. Narcisse then filed this action in 2015. 

III. DISCUSSION

At the same time Mr. Narcisse filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus in April 2015, he 

Case 3:15-cv-01615-EMC Document 25 Filed 06/28/18 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

requested a stay of this action so that he could exhaust state court remedies for some claims. The 

Court granted the stay on April 27, 2015. Docket No. 5. 

Mr. Narcisse later returned to this Court with an “amended petition to add exhausted state 

claims and lift the stay.” Docket No. 9. 

The Court lifted the stay of the action, reviewed the amended petition, and ordered Mr. 

Narcisse to file a second amended petition to address numerous pleading problems in his amended 

petition. Docket No. 12. The Court set a deadline of July 28, 2017, for Mr. Narcisse to file a 

second amended petition. Id. The Court later extended that deadline to July 28, 2017; then to 

October 6, 2017; then to January 31, 2018; and finally to April 27, 2018. See Docket Nos. 15, 21, 

23. In the order setting the April 27, 2018, deadline for Mr. Narcisse to file a second amended 

petition, the Court warned Mr. Narcisse that “[t]his deadline will not be further extended for any 

reason because, by the time it arrives, he will have had ten months to prepare his second amended 

petition. Failure to file the second amended petition by that deadline will result in the dismissal of 

all deficient claims.” Docket No. 23 at 2. 

No second amended petition has been filed, and the deadline by which to do so has long 

passed. 

Due to Mr. Narcisse’s failure to file a second amended petition, the Court now dismisses 

all the claims that were identified as deficient in the June 28, 2017 order. See Docket No. 12 at 3-

10. The claims are dismissed for the reasons discussed in the June 28, 2017 order. 

With those claims dismissed, only the following cognizable claims remain: (1) the use of 

the CALCRIM 3472 jury instruction on self-defense violated Mr. Narcisse’s right to due process 

because there was no evidence to support the instruction (Claim 1); (2) Mr. Narcisse’s sentence 

violated his right to due process and his right to a jury trial because the sentence exceeded the 

maximum sentence the Legislature intended (Claim 10); and (3) the use of the CALCRIM 3471 

jury instruction on self-defense violated Mr. Narcisse’s right to due process because there was no 

evidence to support the instruction (Claim 11). These three claims warrant a response from 

Respondent. 

Case 3:15-cv-01615-EMC Document 25 Filed 06/28/18 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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The three claims in the amended petition mentioned above warrant a response. All 

other claims are dismissed. 

2. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments thereto 

upon Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The 

Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

3. Respondent must file and serve upon Petitioner, on or before August 31, 2018, 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. Respondent must file with the answer a 

copy of all portions of any 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 September 28, 2018.

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

the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely 

fashion.

6. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01615-EMC Document 25 Filed 06/28/18 Page 3 of 3