Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02943/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02943-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT CHURICH,

Petitioner,

v.

SONOMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.

1

Case No. 18-cv-02943-KAW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 3

Petitioner, a California prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his criminal judgment from the 

Sonoma County Superior Court. The following claims appear to be cognizable: (1) insufficient 

evidence to support conviction for intimidation of a victim or witness; and (2) improper sentence 

for great bodily injury enhancement. Petitioner’s claim three appears to be that his defense of selfdefense was ignored by the court. This is also cognizable. Petitioner’s claims based on his 

ignorance of the law or that the victim planted evidence are not cognizable. Petitioner has 

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge over this action. 

Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

Good cause appearing, the Court hereby issues the following orders:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order and the petition and all 

attachments thereto upon 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 at his current 

 

1

The Court sua sponte substitutes William Muniz, the Warden at Salinas Valley State Prison, as 

the proper respondent in accordance with Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. See 

Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:18-cv-02943-VC Document 6 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

address. 

2. No later than sixty days from the date of this Order, Respondent shall file with this 

Court and serve upon Petitioner an Answer in regard to the three cognizable claims 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 all portions of the state 

record that have been transcribed previously and 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 days of his receipt of the 

Answer. If he does not do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision on the 

date the Traverse is due.

3. No later than sixty days from the date of this Order, Respondent may file with this 

Court and serve upon Petitioner 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 to the motion within thirty days of 

receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply 

within fourteen days of receipt of an 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 with the Clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. He also 

must serve on Respondent’s counsel all communications with the Court by mailing a true copy of 

the document to Respondent’s counsel. 

5. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. 

Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than three days prior to the deadline 

sought to be extended.

6. Respondent shall file his Consent or Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction 

on or before the date his answer is due. 

This form can be found at www.cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms.

Case 3:18-cv-02943-VC Document 6 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

7. The Clerk of the Court shall substitute William Muniz as the respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2018

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02943-VC Document 6 Filed 06/28/18 Page 3 of 3