Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05245/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05245-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RASHAD N. BROWN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

D. BAUGHMAN, Warden, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 16-cv-05245-MEJ (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Petitioner, a prisoner currently incarcerated at California State Prison–Sacramento, has 

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. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. 

BACKGROUND 

 Following a jury trial in 2013, Petitioner was convicted of attempted murder, assault with a 

firearm, discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, being a participant in a criminal street 

gang, and being a past-convicted felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 55 years to 

life in state prison. On December 8, 2015, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. 

The Supreme Court of California denied review. Petitioner reports that he did not file any state 

habeas petitions before filing this action. The instant action was filed on September 13, 2016. 

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). 

Case 4:16-cv-05245-JSW Document 6 Filed 12/09/16 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

 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 claims that: (1) the trial court erred by 

denying his motion to sever his case from his co-defendant’s case; (2) there was insufficient 

evidence to support the gang membership conviction; and (3) the trial court failed to instruct the 

jury that two or more people must be found to have committed the underlying felony together in 

order to find participation in a criminal street gang. Liberally construed, Petitioner’s 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 

 1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition and all 

attachments thereto (Docket No. 1), as well as a magistrate judge jurisdiction consent form, 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 Petitioner. 

 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60) 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. 

 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 (30) days of the date the answer is filed. 

 3. Respondent may file, within sixty (60) 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 

Case 4:16-cv-05245-JSW Document 6 Filed 12/09/16 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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. 

 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 

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). 

 5. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be 

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES 

United States Magistrate Judge 

December 8, 2016

Case 4:16-cv-05245-JSW Document 6 Filed 12/09/16 Page 3 of 3