Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04759/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04759-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

DANIEL LLOYD HOWARD,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM SULLIVAN, Acting Warden,1

Respondents.

Case No. 16-cv-04759-YGR (PR)

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE ANSWER; AND 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART PETITIONER’S REQUEST

TO AMEND ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In an Order dated March 11, 2019, Magistrate Judge Robert M. 

Illman ordered Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. Dkt. 32.

Before the Court is Respondent’s request for an extension of time to file his answer. Dkt. 

38. Good cause being shown, the Court hereby GRANTS Respondent’s request for an extension 

of time, and the parties are directed to abide by the briefing schedule outlined below.

Also before the Court is Petitioner’s “Request to Amend Order for Respondent to Show 

Cause,” in which he requests as follows: (1) in the Background section, replacing the sentence “It 

is not clear if petitioner will be retried on the murder and conspiracy counts” with the sentence, 

“The petitioner was not retried on the murder and conspiracy counts”; (2) in the Legal Claims 

section, replacing the description of claim 3 as “it was a due process violation to mandate retrial 

on the reversed counts” with “it was a due process violation to not mandate retrial on the reversed 

counts”; (3) grant Petitioner’s request for a de novo review of claim 1 (the prosecution abused its 

discretion by joining various counts) and claims 6 and 12 (the trial court’s denial of the motion to 

sever various counts violated due process); and (4) reinstate claim 8 (the state appellate courts 

erred by reversing the first degree murder charge and allowing the prosecution the option of 

modification to second degree murder when there were jury instruction errors). Dkt. 33. 

 

1 William Sullivan, the current acting warden of the prison where Petitioner is incarcerated, 

has been substituted as Respondent pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

Case 4:16-cv-04759-YGR Document 40 Filed 06/14/19 Page 1 of 3
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

Respondent does not oppose Petitioner’s first two requests that the Court amend the March 

11, 2019 Order to Show Cause to reflect that Petitioner was not retried on the murder and 

conspiracy counts, and to accurately represent the substance of claim 3. See Dkt. 37 at 2. 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS these aforementioned requests.

Respondent opposes Petitioner’s two other requests that the Court conduct a de novo 

review of the claims 1, 6 and 12, and that claim 8 be reinstated. See id. at 2-3. First, as to 

Petitioner’s request for a de novo review, Respondent states as follows:

The petition in this case is governed by the Antiterrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Under AEDPA, a 

federal habeas court may not review claims brought by a state 

petitioner in the first instance. “An application for a writ of habeas 

corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a 

State court shall not be granted unless it appears that (A) the applicant 

has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); see O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 

(1999) (“Before a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state 

prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust his remedies in state court.”). 

Further, under AEDPA, a federal court has no authority to grant 

habeas relief unless the state court’s ruling was “contrary to, or 

involved an unreasonable application of,” Supreme Court law that 

was “clearly established” at the time the state court adjudicated the 

claim on the merits. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see Woodford v. 

Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam) (a federal habeas court 

must impose a “highly deferential” standard of review when 

evaluating state court rulings which “demands that state court 

decisions be given the benefit of the doubt”). Petitioner’s request that 

the Court apply de novo review to three of the claims in his petition 

should accordingly be denied.

Id. at 2. The Court agrees with Respondent, and thus it DENIES Petitioner’s request for the Court 

to conduct a de novo review of the claims 1, 6 and 12. Next, as to Petitioner’s request that claim 8 

be reinstated, Respondent opposes such a request because “Petitioner concedes that claim 8 

concerns only state law instructional error, and does not raise a federal constitutional claim.” Id.

at 2 (citing Dkt. 33 at 2). The Court notes that in the March 11, 2019 Order, Magistrate Judge 

Illman dismissed claim 8 upon finding that it only involved issues of state law and failed to raise a 

cognizable federal claim, stating as follows: “Claim 8 discusses jury instruction error pursuant to 

state law and does not raise a federal jury instruction claim nor was a federal jury instruction claim 

exhausted.” Dkt. 32 at 2. Because Petitioner concedes that claim 8 does not implicate the federal 

constitution, the Court DENIES his request to reinstate claim 8.

Case 4:16-cv-04759-YGR Document 40 Filed 06/14/19 Page 2 of 3
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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons outlined above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Respondent’s request for an extension of time to file his answer is GRANTED, and 

the parties shall abide by the briefing schedule below. Dkt. 38. The Court notes that this is the 

first extension in this case. The granting of regular requests for extensions should not be expected.

2. Petitioner’s “Request to Amend Order for Respondent to Show Cause” is 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as explained above. Dkt. 33.

3. The answer is due on or before July 5, 2019. 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 his receipt of the answer. All other provisions of Magistrate Judge 

Illman’s March 11, 2019 order to show cause remain in effect to the extent they are not 

inconsistent with this Order. 

4. This Order terminates Docket Nos. 33 and 38.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

June 14, 2019

Case 4:16-cv-04759-YGR Document 40 Filed 06/14/19 Page 3 of 3