Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06588/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06588-1/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

MICHAEL EUGENE WYATT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN SUTTON,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06588-PJH 

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO 

SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The amended petition was dismissed with leave to amend 

and petitioner has filed a second amended petition.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was sentenced to 56 years to life in prison after being found guilty of 

first-degree murder. People v. Wyatt, No. A144872, 2018 WL 1633816, at *5 (Cal. Ct. 

App. April 5, 2018). His appeals were denied by the California Court of Appeal and 

California Supreme Court. Docket No. 1 at 3. A pro se habeas petition to the California 

Supreme Court was also denied. Docket No. 19 at 7-19.

In the California Court of Appeal petitioner contended that: (1) there was 

insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation for first degree murder; (2) the 

court erroneously admitted evidence of his prior conviction for voluntary manslaughter; 

(3) the court should have instructed the jury not to use the evidence of the prior homicide 

unless it made a preliminary finding that the homicide was committed with malice; (4) the 

court should have instructed the jury on self-defense and imperfect self-defense; (5) the 

prosecutor committed misconduct by saying that manslaughter was “murder with an 

Case 4:18-cv-06588-PJH Document 21 Filed 03/04/19 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 California

excuse;” and (6) cumulative error. Wyatt, 2018 WL 1633816, at *1. The claims 

presented in the pro se petition to the California Supreme Court are difficult to understand

but involve ineffective assistance of counsel. Docket No. 19 at 7-19. 

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court may entertain a petition for 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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet 

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An 

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody 

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to 

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the 

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 

1970)).

LEGAL CLAIMS

The first two petitions were dismissed with leave to amend because it was not 

entirely clear the claims petitioner had presented. Liberally construing the second 

amended petition, petitioner asserts that: (1) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the 

jury on self-defense and imperfect self-defense; (2) there was insufficient evidence of 

premeditation and deliberation for first degree murder; and (3) ineffective assistance of 

counsel for failing to object to improper jury instructions and failing to present a claim of 

self-defense. These claims are sufficient to require a response. If these are not the 

claims petitioner wishes to proceed with, he must inform the court within fourteen-days.

Case 4:18-cv-06588-PJH Document 21 Filed 03/04/19 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 California

CONCLUSION

1. All claims are dismissed except the claims discussed above. If these are 

not the claims petitioner wishes to proceed with, he must inform the court within 

fourteen-days. 

2. The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order and the petition 

(Docket No. 19) and all attachments thereto on 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. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within fifty-six 

(56) 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 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 twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of 

the answer.

4. 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, it is due fifty-six (56) 

days from the date this order is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the 

Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 

twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court 

and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition.

5. 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 informed of any change of address and must comply with 

the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this 

Case 4:18-cv-06588-PJH Document 21 Filed 03/04/19 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 California

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See 

Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas 

cases).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2019

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

\\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\PJHALL\_psp\2018\2018_06588_Wyatt_v_Sutton_(PSP)\18-cv-06588-PJH-osc.docx

Case 4:18-cv-06588-PJH Document 21 Filed 03/04/19 Page 4 of 4