Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01567/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01567-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN CRAIG,

Petitioner,

 vs.

TOM FELKER, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-1567 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at High Desert State Prison, seeks

a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of the State of

California in and for the County of Alameda of attempted murder and related

offenses for the September 18, 2002 shooting of David Hayes. On August 13,

2003, he was sentenced to 34 years to life in state prison. 

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction and sentence to the

California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California, which denied

review on June 29, 2005.

Case 3:07-cv-01567-CRB Document 11 Filed 10/06/08 Page 1 of 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 2

Petitioner also unsuccessfully sought collateral relief from the state courts

until the Supreme Court of California denied his petition on November 29, 2006.

Petitioner then filed the instant federal habeas action on March 19, 2007. 

But he promptly obtained a stay in order to exhaust two additional claims.

Currently before the court is petitioner's Amended Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus, which he filed shortly after the Supreme Court of California

denied his final state habeas petition on July 9, 2008. 

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. Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising several claims,

including prejudicial admission of evidence, instructional error, ineffective

assistance of counsel and unlawfully enhanced sentence based on findings not

made by the jury . Liberally construed, the claims appear cognizable under §

2254 and merit an answer from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015,

1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of

habeas corpus liberally).

/

/

Case 3:07-cv-01567-CRB Document 11 Filed 10/06/08 Page 2 of 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 3

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall reopen this matter and serve by certified mail a copy

of this order and the Amended Petition 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. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

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 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 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 30 days of receipt of the motion, and

respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days

of receipt of any opposition.

4. 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 also keep the court and all parties informed of any

Case 3:07-cv-01567-CRB Document 11 Filed 10/06/08 Page 3 of 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 G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.07\Craig, k1.osc.wpd 4

change of address. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Oct. 06, 2008 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01567-CRB Document 11 Filed 10/06/08 Page 4 of 4