Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03266/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03266-0/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)

---

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

RAYMOND B. MCCOWAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. L. GOWER,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03266-JST 

ORDER REOPENING CASE AND 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Centinela State Prison, filed a pro se petition for 

a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from San Francisco

County Superior Court. On January 8, 2016, because two of petitioner’s nine claims were 

unexhausted, the Court stayed the petition and administratively closed this case so that Petitioner

could exhaust the unexhausted claims in the state courts. Docket No. 11. 

On March 14, 2016, Petitioner filed a copy of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus that 

he filed with the California Supreme Court, and the California Supreme Court’s February 17, 

2016, denial of that writ. Docket No. 13. The Court construes this filing as a motion to reopen the 

case. Petitioner appears to have exhausted all the claims presented in his initial petition. Good 

cause shown, Petitioner’s motion to reopen is GRANTED.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the 

Court reviews the petition. 

BACKGROUND

In 2012, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, domestic violence, assault with 

force likely to produce great bodily injury, violating a stay-away order, and resisting or 

obstructing a peace officer. See Docket No. 1 (“Pet.”) at 1–2. He was sentenced to thirteen years 

Case 3:15-cv-03266-JST Document 14 Filed 04/11/16 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

in state prison. See id. at 1. His conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal in 

2012, and his petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court on July 9, 2014. 

See id. at 3. Petitioner reports that he did not file any state habeas petitions before commencing

this action. See id. at 3. The instant action was filed on July 14, 2015. On or about November 20, 

2015, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the California Supreme Court, see

Docket No. 13-1 at 2, which was denied on February 17, 2016, see id. at 1.

DISCUSSION

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 petition, Petitioner claims the following grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) the 

trial court erred by admitting cumulative prejudicial propensity evidence; (2) his rights to due 

process, a fair trial, and equal protection of the law were violated when the prosecution failed to 

disclose exculpatory Brady evidence; (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (4) insufficient 

evidence to support his conviction for resisting or obstructing a police officer; (5) insufficient 

evidence that his 1982 conviction for great bodily injury constituted a violent felony with the 

meaning of section 667(a)(1) of the California Penal Code; (6) the trial court violated his due 

process rights because it relied upon improper aggravating factors in determining his sentence; (7) 

the trial court violated his due process rights because it failed to consider mitigating factors in 

determining his sentence; (8) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; and (9) his rights under 

the Confrontation Clause were violated. Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims are cognizable 

under § 2254 and merit an answer from Respondent.

CONCLUSION

1. 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 

Case 3:15-cv-03266-JST Document 14 Filed 04/11/16 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

Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

2. The Court notes that the writ for a petition of habeas corpus that Petitioner filed with 

the California Supreme Court on November 20, 2015, appears to differ from the petition filed in 

the instant action. The petition filed on July 14, 2015 (Docket No. 1) initiated this action and is 

the operative petition. If Petitioner seeks to have the Court consider additional claims for habeas 

relief beyond the claims found cognizable above, Petitioner should file an amended petition with 

this Court, listing all claims for habeas relief. The Civil Rule governing pleading amendments, 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, made applicable to habeas proceedings by 28 U.S.C. § 2242, 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(a)(2), and Habeas Corpus Rule 11, allows amendments with 

leave of court any time during a proceeding. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 654–55 (2005) (citing 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). Before a responsive pleading is served, pleadings may be amended once as 

a matter of course, i.e., without seeking court leave. Id. at 655. 

Petitioner is cautioned that, generally, amendment of a petition constitutes waiver of any 

arguments or claims from previous versions of the petition that are not raised in the amended 

petition. See Sechrest v. Ignacio, 549 F.3d 789, 804 (9th Cir. 2008). In other words, the filing of 

a new petition cancels out and waives any claims from the old petition. Id. In addition, Petitioner 

is cautioned that amendments must also satisfy AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations. “An 

amended habeas petition . . . does not relate back (and thereby escape AEDPA’s one-year time 

limit) when it asserts a new ground for relief supported by facts that differ in both time and type 

from those the original pleading set forth.” Mayle, 545 U.S. at 650. Amended petitions relate 

back to the date of the original pleading if the original and amended pleadings “‘ar[i]se out of the 

same conduct, transaction, or occurrence.’” Id. at 655 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2)). 

3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety-one (91)

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 

based on the claims found cognizable herein. 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 3:15-cv-03266-JST Document 14 Filed 04/11/16 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

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 the date the answer is filed.

4. Respondent may file, within ninety-one (91) days, 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 twenty-eight 

(28) days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 

Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any opposition is filed.

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 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). 

6. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the Court sua sponte substitutes 

Warren L. Montgomery, the current warden of Calipatria State Prison, where Petitioner is

currently incarcerated, as Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03266-JST Document 14 Filed 04/11/16 Page 4 of 4