Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00274/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00274-0/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 to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Johnson274osc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK L. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-0274 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

On December 7, 2004, the Court dismissed the instant petition for writ of habeas 

corpus without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to pay the filing fee. On January 4, 2005,

the Court granted Petitioner an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. On

January 18, 2005, Petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration. The Court granted

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, vacated the judgment and reopened the instant

action on September 16, 2005. The Court orders Respondent to show cause why the

amended petition should not be granted. 

STATEMENT

An Alameda Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of first degree murder with

the personal use of a firearm and discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle causing

death. With an enhancement for his prior “strike” conviction under California’s “Three

**Original filed 8/31/06**

Case 5:03-cv-00274-JF Document 15 Filed 08/31/06 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.03\Johnson274osc 2

Strikes” law, Petitioner was sentenced to sixty-five years-to-life in state prison on March

24, 2000. Petitioner appealed his conviction. The state appellate court affirmed the

judgment on October 18, 2001. The state supreme court denied a petition for review on

January 23, 2002. Petitioner filed state habeas petitions in the state appellate court and

state supreme court, which were both denied as of January 23, 2002. The instant federal

habeas petition was filed on January 22, 2003. The Court granted Petitioner leave to file

an amended petition. Petitioner filed an amended petition on September 12, 2003. 

Thereafter, the Court dismissed the instant petition for Petitioner’s failure to pay the filing

fee. On September 16, 2005, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration,

vacated the judgment and reopened the instant action. 

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) Petitioner was

deprived of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to effective assistance of trial

counsel resulting in a fundamental miscarriage of justice; (2) the trial court erred in

violation of Cal. Penal Code §§ 1367, 1369 when the court failed, before it decided that

Petitioner was competent, to appoint the director of the regional center for the

developmentally disabled to evaluate him to determine if a developmental disability

rendered him incompetent to stand trial; (3) trial counsel’s failure to effectively assist

Petitioner in connection with the trial court’s failure to appoint the regional center

Case 5:03-cv-00274-JF Document 15 Filed 08/31/06 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.03\Johnson274osc 3

director violated Petitioner’s rights under the Sixth Amendment; (4) ineffective assistance

of trial counsel in counsel’s failure to request CAL JIC No. 8.73 which would have

informed the jury that “provocation” can reduce a homicide from first degree murder to

second degree murder, requiring reversal of Petitioner’s first degree murder conviction;

(5) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in counsel’s failure to request the mental

disorder instruction pursuant to CAL JIC No. 3.32; and (6) Petitioner was denied

effective assistance of appellate counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. 

Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims are sufficient to require a response. The Court

orders Respondent to show cause why the amended petition should not be granted.

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of the amended petition (docket no. 6) 

and all attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney

General of the State of California. 

2. 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.

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 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 5:03-cv-00274-JF Document 15 Filed 08/31/06 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.03\Johnson274osc 4

4. 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

8/31/06 /S/

Case 5:03-cv-00274-JF Document 15 Filed 08/31/06 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.03\Johnson274osc 5

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

Frederick L. Johnson

J-83092/ B6-1-17-U

CSP - Sacramento

P.O. Box 290066

Represa, CA 95671-0066

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 

Case 5:03-cv-00274-JF Document 15 Filed 08/31/06 Page 5 of 5