Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03666/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03666-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD A. KING,

Petitioner, 

 v.

GEORGE M. GALAZA, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-3666 WHA (PR) 

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO

SHOW CAUSE

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. In the initial review order one of

the two claims was dismissed as not presenting a federal ground for relief. The other issue, a

claim that petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the facts necessary to

impose the upper term of the sentencing range provided by California law were found by the

sentencing court rather than by a jury, appeared not to be exhausted, so petitioner was ordered

to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust. 

Upon review of the materials petitioner has filed, it appears that his petition for review

directed to the Supreme Court of California did include the second issue, although apparently

his appeal as submitted to the California Court of Appeal did not. This is sufficient to satisfy

the order for petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed. An order for

respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted will issue. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner has shown, at least provisionally, that he has exhausted. The order to show

cause directed to petitioner is DISCHARGED.

Case 3:05-cv-03666-WHA Document 14 Filed 04/22/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to 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. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of

service 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 thirty days of service of the answer.

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer,

as set forth in 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 thirty 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.

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

respondent by mailing a copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Papers intended to be

filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk rather than to the undersigned. Petitioner also

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 comply with any orders of the court within the time

allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. 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). See Martinez

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.05\KING666.OSC-R.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-03666-WHA Document 14 Filed 04/22/08 Page 2 of 2