Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02084/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02084-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO HARRIS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

T. FELKER, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2084 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at High Desert State Prison, has

filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner and co-defendant Eric Lockhart were convicted by a jury in the

Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda of 

murder with special circumstances. On December 12, 2003, petitioner was

sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. 

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court

of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California, which on August 23, 2006

denied review of a petition allegedly raising the same claim(s) raised here.

Case 3:07-cv-02084-CRB Document 3 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 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 2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This 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). 

It 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." Id. § 2243. 

B. Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that the trial

court's refusal to sever his trial from that of his co-defendant denied him his right

to due process and to present a defense. He also seeks to raise Confrontation

Clause and instructional errors claims raised by his co-defendant in the state

courts. Liberally construed, the claims appear cognizable under § 2254 and merit

an answer from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.

2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus

liberally).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

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

petition and all attachments thereto on respondent and respondent's attorney, the

Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of

this order on petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

60 days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule

Case 3:07-cv-02084-CRB Document 3 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 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 3

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 30 days of his receipt

of the answer.

3. Respondent may file 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 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. Petitioner must also keep the court and all parties informed of any

change of address. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 29, 2007 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.07\Harris, A1.osc.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-02084-CRB Document 3 Filed 08/29/07 Page 3 of 3