Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04970/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04970-0/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)

---

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 1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page

numbers at the tops of the documents.

15-cv-4970 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

WALTER LEE BELL, 

Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN D. BITER, Warden, 

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

No. 15-cv-4970 LB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

[Re: ECF Nos. 1, 2] 

INTRODUCTION

Walter Lee Bell, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the court for review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts. He has consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4.)1

This order requires the respondent to file a response to the petition. 

Case 3:15-cv-04970-CRB Document 3 Filed 12/08/15 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

15-cv-4970 LB

ORDER 2

STATEMENT

Following a jury trial in Contra Costa County, Mr. Bell was convicted of special circumstances

murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. (See ECF No. 1 at 1-2.) Mr.

Bell appealed. His conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal in 2014, and his

petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court in 2015. (Id. at 3.) He then filed

this action.

ANALYSIS

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). A district 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. 

In his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus, Mr. Bell asserts the following three claims. 

First, he contends that he was denied due process when the trial court excluded “his recorded

statement to Emily to rebut her false testimony and to corroborate his own testimony.” (ECF No. 1

at 5.) Second, he contends that he was denied due process and his right to present a defense “by the

trial court’s erroneous exclusion of evidence of third party culpability regarding Aaron Marks.” 

(Id.) Third, he alleges that he was denied due process and his right to a public trial “by the court’s

exclusion of his family members during Devin McCalope’s testimony.” (Id.) Liberally construed,

the claims appear to be cognizable in a federal habeas action and warrant a response from the

respondent.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition warrants a response. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments thereto

upon the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. 

The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner.

Case 3:15-cv-04970-CRB Document 3 Filed 12/08/15 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

15-cv-4970 LB

ORDER 3

3. The clerk also shall serve a copy of the "consent or declination to magistrate judge

jurisdiction" form upon the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California. 

4. The respondent must file and serve upon the petitioner, on or before February 8, 2016, 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. The respondent must file with the answer a

copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and that are

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

5. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with the

court and serving it on the respondent on or before March 4, 2016. 

6. The petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. The petitioner must promptly keep

the court informed of any change of address and must comply with orders in a timely fashion. The

petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this case on the first

page of any document he submits to the court for consideration in this case.

7. The petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. (ECF No. 2.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04970-CRB Document 3 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 3