Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05232/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05232-3/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—No. C-08-05232 RMW

ASA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 8/6/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WILLIAM VASQUEZ MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MIKE MCDONALD, WARDEN, SOLANO

STATE PRISON,

Respondent.

No. C-08-05232 RMW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

[Re Docket No. 1]

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. The court will require respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be

granted.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 2, 2004, a jury in Santa Clara County found petitioner guilty as an aider and

abettor of attempted premeditated murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and use of a deadly or

dangerous weapon during the commission of said offenses and found that all the offenses were

committed for the benefit of, or in association with, a criminal street gang. On October 6, 2005, the

trial court denied petitioner's motion for a new trial and sentenced petitioner to a term of fifteen (15)

years to life. Petitioner appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District. On

Case 5:08-cv-05232-RMW Document 18 Filed 08/06/10 Page 1 of 3
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—No. C-08-05232 RMW

ASA 2

May 25, 2007, the Sixth Appellate District affirmed petitioner's conviction and sentence. On June

26, 2007, petitioner filed for review in the California Supreme Court. On August 22, 2007, the

California Supreme Court denied review without comment. The instant petition for habeas corpus

was filed on November 19, 2008 and was stayed on September 29, 2009 for petitioner to exhaust

additional claims in state court. On May 24, 2010, the court lifted the stay. 

II. ANALYSIS

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). 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 claims the following grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) the prosecution violated the

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by failing to preserve exculpatory

evidence; (2) petitioner's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to lodge a

timely request to preserve evidence; (3) the CALJIC 3.02 jury instruction (regarding natural and

probable consequences) violated petitioner's due process rights by permitting the jury to convict

petitioner of premeditated and deliberate attempted murder without proof of the requisite specific intent;

(4) the gang enhancement is not supported by substantial evidence; and (5) the gang evidence introduced

violated petitioner's due process rights. The court will require respondent to show cause why a writ of

habeas corpus should not be granted.

III. ORDER

Good cause appearing, the court hereby issues the following orders:

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

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of

California. 

Case 5:08-cv-05232-RMW Document 18 Filed 08/06/10 Page 2 of 3
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—No. C-08-05232 RMW

ASA 3

2. Respondent shall file with the court, 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 a copy of all portions of the state 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 non-opposition to the motion 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. 

DATED: 8/6/10

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-05232-RMW Document 18 Filed 08/06/10 Page 3 of 3