Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05408/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05408-1/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DARREL R. SLAPE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DIRECTOR BOBBY HAASE,1

 et al., 

Respondents. 

Case No. 16-05408 EJD (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 

 

 Petitioner, a parolee proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. Petitioner has paid the 

filing fee.2

 (Docket No. 5.) 

 

1 The rules governing relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 require a person in custody pursuant to 

the judgment of a state court to name the “‘state officer having custody’” of him as the 

respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Rule 2(a) 

of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section § 2254). Where the 

petitioner is on probation or parole, he may name his probation or parole officer “and the 

official in charge of the parole or probation agency, or the state correctional agency, as 

appropriate.” Rule 2(b) advisory committee's note. 

2

 The matter was originally dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee, and then reopened 

after Petitioner submitted proof of payment. (Docket No. 7.) The Court again dismissed 

the petition because it was clear from the petition that Petitioner did not exhaust state 

judicial remedies before filing this action. (Docket No. 8.) Thereafter, Petitioner filed a 

motion to reinstate the case after providing a copy of the California Supreme Court’s 

decision denying his state habeas petition; the Court granted the motion and reopened the 

Case 5:16-cv-05408-EJD Document 12 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 4
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

BACKGROUND 

According to the petition, Petitioner was found guilty of sexual battery, sexual 

penetration with a foreign object, and battery by a jury in Humboldt County Superior 

Court. (Docket No. 1-1 at 2.) Petitioner was sentenced in May 2012, to seven years in 

state prison, and released on parole on February 20, 2016.3

 (Id.) 

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the state appellate court and then to the state 

high court without success. It appears that Petitioner also filed state habeas petitions 

which were denied. 

Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on September 21, 2016. 

 

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). 

 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. 

B. Legal Claims 

Petitioner raises the following grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) actual 

innocence; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel (new grounds); (3) the trial court erred 

in admitting prejudicial propensity evidence of “unproven prior accusation” to prove 

intent; (4) ineffective assistance of trial counsel (on grounds presented on appeal); (5) the 

trial court erred in excluding the testimony of two expert witnesses for the defense; (6) 

 

case. (Docket No. 11.) 

 

3

 Petitioner states that he is “at home in Mt. Shasta with a G.P.S. brac[e]let.” (Docket No. 

1-1 at 2.)

Case 5:16-cv-05408-EJD Document 12 Filed 03/27/18 Page 2 of 4
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

inadequate jury instructions; (7) failure to provide accommodations for his hearing 

disability; (8) failure to give jury instructions on defense arguments; (9) he was not given 

proper notice of the charges against him; (10) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; 

and (11) new evidence establishing that the trial court’s exclusion of defense expert 

witnesses resulted in an unfair trial. Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable under 

§ 2254 and merit an answer from Respondent. 

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, on Respondents (at the Division of Adult Parole Operations 

Headquarters for the Northern Region, 9825 Goethe Road, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 

95827) and Respondents’ 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 issued. 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 twentyeight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the court and serve 

Case 5:16-cv-05408-EJD Document 12 Filed 03/27/18 Page 3 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition. 

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded 

that all communications with the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true 

copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner 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: ________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Order to Show Cause 

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.16\05408Slape_osc 

3/27/2018

Case 5:16-cv-05408-EJD Document 12 Filed 03/27/18 Page 4 of 4