Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04542/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04542-0/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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.07\Juniel542ifposc 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD JAMES JUNIEL, JR.,

Petitioner,

 vs.

T. FELKNER, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4542 RMW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

(Docket No. 3)

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The

court finds that petitioner has shown good cause to proceed in forma pauperis and will

GRANT petitioner’s motion (docket no. 3). The court orders respondent to show cause

why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, an Alameda Superior Court jury convicted petitioner of

murder with the personal use of a firearm and an enhancement for great bodily injury

(Cal. Penal Code §§ 187, 12022.53(b), (c), (d)) and possession of an assault weapon (Cal.

Penal Code §§ 12280(b)). Petitioner was sentenced on December 15, 2003, and is

currently serving his sentence at High Desert State Prison. On direct appeal, the state

appellate court affirmed the judgment and conviction on February 16, 2006. 

*E-FILED - 4/28/08*

Case 5:07-cv-04542-RMW Document 5 Filed 04/28/08 Page 1 of 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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.07\Juniel542ifposc 2

The state supreme court denied a petition for review on June 14, 2006. The instant

federal petition was filed on August 31, 2007. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief petitioner asserts that: (1) the police 

department tampered with evidence used to convict him at trial; (2) ineffective assistance

of counsel at the preliminary hearing and abuse of discretion by the denial of a

continuance which forced defense counsel to proceed unprepared; (3) juror misconduct;

(4) petitioner’s trial was improperly joined with the trial of an adverse co-defendant with

antagonizing, irreconcilable defenses which violated his right to due process; (5) the

admission of evidence of alleged prior bad acts and bad character violated his federal

right to due process and was erroneous under the California Evidence Code; (6) the

admission of petitioner’s letter to his attorney at trial violated the attorney-client privilege

under the Sixth Amendment and was admitted without the requisite 402 hearing; (7) the

trial court’s ruling concerning the admission of his prior bad acts and bad character

violated his right to due process and right to present a defense; (8) the trial court forced

petitioner to declare in advance whether he would testify in violation of his right to

remain silent under the Fifth Amendment; (9) the trial court’s refusal to give an

instruction regarding the lesser-included offense of manslaughter violated state and

federal law; (10) the trial court’s failure to give an instruction pursuant to CAL JIC 

Case 5:07-cv-04542-RMW Document 5 Filed 04/28/08 Page 2 of 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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.07\Juniel542ifposc 3

No. 8.73 violated state and federal law; and (11) prosecutorial misconduct throughout the

trial violated his right to due process. Liberally construed, petitioner’s allegations are

sufficient to require a response. The court orders respondent to show cause why the

petition should not be granted. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 3) is 

GRANTED.

2. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition (docket 

no. 1) 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. 

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

days of the date of receipt of this order and the petition, 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 underlying state criminal 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 his receipt of the

answer.

4. 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 within sixty days of the date of receipt of this order. 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 fifteen days

of receipt of any opposition.

Case 5:07-cv-04542-RMW Document 5 Filed 04/28/08 Page 3 of 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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.07\Juniel542ifposc 4

5. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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 and all

parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of

Change of Address.” He 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

4/21/08

Case 5:07-cv-04542-RMW Document 5 Filed 04/28/08 Page 4 of 4