Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07232/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07232-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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 to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Rogers232osc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC ROGERS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

K. MENDOZA POWERS, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-7232 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a request for appointment of 

counsel on November 22, 2006. On that same day, the Court sent a notification to

Petitioner that he did not complete a proper in forma pauperis application because he

failed to submit his request on the Court’s in forma pauperis form and failed to provide a

certificate of funds from his prisoner account. The Court also sent a notification to

Petitioner that he did not file a complaint or petition with his pleadings and that he must

submit a petition within thirty days or the action would be dismissed without prejudice. 

On December 26, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and

attached a copy of the certificate of funds from his prisoner trust account. 

**E-filed 5/22/07**

Case 5:06-cv-07232-JF Document 11 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 5
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 to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Rogers232osc 2

On May 11, 2007, the Court granted petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and

denied Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. The Court

granted Petitioner an extension of time to file a habeas petition within thirty days of the

Court’s order. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on March 7, 2007. 

The Court will order Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

An Alameda Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of sale of cocaine base (Cal.

Health & Safety Code § 11352(a)). On October 16, 2003, Petitioner was sentenced to a

term of ten years in state prison. On direct appeal, the state appellate court affirmed the

judgment in 2006. The state supreme court denied a petition for review in 2006. The

instant federal habeas action was filed on November 22, 2006. The instant petition was

filed on March 7, 2007. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district 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

Petitioner alleges the following claims for federal habeas relief: (1) the prosecutor

committed misconduct when he used his peremptory challenges to remove two African

women jurors; (2) Petitioner was denied due process and the right to confront witnesses

by the trial court’s denial of discovery of a police report which could impeach the

credibility of police witnesses; (3) the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury sua

sponte on the meaning of the technical term “material part” which was included in CAL

Case 5:06-cv-07232-JF Document 11 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 5
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 to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Rogers232osc 3

JIC No. 2.21.2; and (4) Petitioner was denied his federal constitutional right to a jury trial

and the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in sentencing him to an upper term based

on facts beyond those found true by the jury. Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims are

sufficient to require a response. The Court orders Respondent to show cause why the

petition should not be granted.

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall terminate MICHAEL KNOWLES and substitute K. 

MENDOZA-POWERS as the Respondent in this habeas action. 

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

no. 8) and all attachments thereto upon Respondent and 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 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. 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 a copy 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. 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 5:06-cv-07232-JF Document 11 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 5
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 to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Rogers232osc 4

5. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

5/22/07

Case 5:06-cv-07232-JF Document 11 Filed 05/22/07 Page 4 of 5
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 to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Rogers232osc 5

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

Eric Rogers 

P-74107

Avenal State Prison

P.O. Box 9

Avenal, CA 93204

Case 5:06-cv-07232-JF Document 11 Filed 05/22/07 Page 5 of 5