Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04259/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04259-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

N:\Pro - Se\6.13.2007\03-04259 Henry4259_osc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY WAYNE HENRY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

LOCKYER,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-04259 JW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because the petition was mixed, i.e., containing both

exhausted and unexhausted claims, petitioner was given leave to amend to allege

only exhausted claims. At the Court’s order, petitioner filed an amended petition

containing only exhausted claims. The petition is now before the Court for initial

review. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

///

///

Case 5:03-cv-04259-JW Document 13 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 All future statutory references are to the California Penal Code unless

otherwise noted.

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\6.13.2007\03-04259 Henry4259_osc.wpd 2

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner was convicted by a jury in Superior

Court for the State of California in and for the County of Santa Cruz of two counts

of willfully disturbing the peace (Cal. Penal Code § 415(2)1

), entering land with the

intention of interfering with a lawful business (§ 602, subd.(J)), and interfering with

a lawful business (§ 602.1). Petitioner received a conditional sentence for three

years requiring him to stay away from the Rancho Del Mar Shopping Center.

Petitioner appealed his conviction. He filed a writ of mandamus with the state

appellate court which was denied on June 30, 2003. The state supreme court denied

the petition for review on August 13, 2003. Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition

on September 18, 2003, and then the instant amended petition on September 15,

2004. 

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. 

///

Case 5:03-cv-04259-JW Document 13 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

N:\Pro - Se\6.13.2007\03-04259 Henry4259_osc.wpd 3

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner alleges that there was insufficient evidence to support his

conviction under § 602.1 and § 602, subd.(J) in violation of due process. Liberally

construed, petitioner’s claims appear cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer

from respondent. 

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

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 issued. 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 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 nonCase 5:03-cv-04259-JW Document 13 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

N:\Pro - Se\6.13.2007\03-04259 Henry4259_osc.wpd 4

opposition within thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file

with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of

any opposition.

4. 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). 

DATED: June 13 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:03-cv-04259-JW Document 13 Filed 06/13/07 Page 4 of 4