Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00500/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00500-1/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARMAL D. HOWARD,

Petitioner,

 v.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent.

___________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-0500 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The original petition was unsigned;

petitioner thereafter filed a signed amended petition. 

BACKGROUND

A jury in Alameda County Superior Court found petitioner guilty of robbery, attempted

robbery and personal use of a firearm. On March 22, 2002, petitioner was sentenced to a term

of 18 years and four months in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the

Supreme Court of California denied the petition for review. Petitioner next filed petitions for

a writ of habeas corpus at all three levels of the California courts, which petitions were denied.

Case 3:05-cv-00500-MMC Document 5 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district 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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). The court 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." 28

U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate where the allegations in the petition are

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-

76 (1977)). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (2) his

conviction violated his right to due process because it was not supported by sufficient

evidence. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims are cognizable.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

amended petition, along with all attachments thereto, upon respondent and respondent's

attorney, the Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of

this order on petitioner.

 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of

the date this order is filed, 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 based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. 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. 

Case 3:05-cv-00500-MMC Document 5 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within 60 days of the date this order is

filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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. 

5. It is petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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 action for failure

to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will

be granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline which they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 3, 2005

 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00500-MMC Document 5 Filed 11/03/05 Page 3 of 3