Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02001/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02001-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIKAI TELEA,

Petitioner,

 v.

K. HARRINGTON, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C-10-2001 TEH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Kern Valley 

State Prison in Corcoran, California, has filed a pro se Petition

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a

judgment of conviction from San Mateo County Superior Court. 

Doc. #1. He has paid the $ 5.00 filing fee. 

I 

Petitioner was sentenced to life in state prison following

his convictions by jury in San Mateo County Superior Court of

multiple counts of murder, attempted murder and robbery. The

California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an unpublished

Case 3:10-cv-02001-TEH Document 4 Filed 06/15/10 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

2

opinion. People v. Telea, No. A110926, 2008 WL 4997608 (Cal. Ct.

App. Nov. 28, 2008). On February 11, 2009, the California Supreme

Court denied review. Id. The instant federal Petition for a Writ

of Habeas Corpus followed. Doc. #1. 

II

This Court may entertain a petition for a 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). It 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.” Id. § 2243. 

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by alleging

several claims, including: (1) the trial court violated his due

process rights by excluding various forms of evidence proffered by

the defense; (2) a violation of his right to remain silent under

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda); and (3) a

violation by the prosecutor of Petitioner’s rights under Doyle v.

Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618–19 (1976) (it is fundamentally unfair and a

deprivation of due process to use post-Miranda silence against a

defendant at trial in view of the implicit assurance contained in

Miranda warnings that exercise of the right of silence will not be

penalized). Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims appear

cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an Answer from

Respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.

Case 3:10-cv-02001-TEH Document 4 Filed 06/15/10 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

3

2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of

habeas corpus liberally). 

III

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 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 it on Respondent

within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the Answer.

3. In lieu of an Answer, Respondent may file a Motion to

Dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 (30) days of receipt of the motion, and

Case 3:10-cv-02001-TEH Document 4 Filed 06/15/10 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

4

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a Reply

within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any Opposition.

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 also must keep the

Court and all parties informed of any change of address. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 06/14/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.10\Telea-10-2001-osc.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-02001-TEH Document 4 Filed 06/15/10 Page 4 of 4