Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05178/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05178-2/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

Case No. 14-CV-05178-LHK 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAMARCUS ANTHONY THOMPSON,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT W. FOX,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-CV-05178-LHK 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On November 21, 2014, Petitioner Damarcus Anthony Thompson (“Petitioner”), 

represented by counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

challenging his detention at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California. ECF No. 1. 

On August 28, 2015, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF 

No. 14 (“First Amended Petition”). For good cause shown, the Court hereby ORDERS 

Respondent Robert W. Fox (“Respondent”) to show cause why the First Amended Petition should 

not be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 6, 2011, following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of gross vehicular 

manslaughter while intoxicated; fleeing the scene of the crime; driving under the influence of 

Case 5:14-cv-05178-LHK Document 15 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 14-CV-05178-LHK 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

Northern District of California

alcohol and causing personal injury; and leaving the scene of an injury producing accident. First 

Am. Pet. ¶ 1. In addition, Petitioner was convicted of causing bodily injury and death to multiple 

victims, driving at an excessive speed, and causing great bodily injury to multiple victims. Id.

On October 21, 2011, Petitioner was sentenced to a total term of 20 years 10 months in 

state prison. Id.¶ 2. On November 15, 2011, Petitioner filed a timely appeal to the First Appellate 

District alleging insufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s convictions, instructional error, 

prosecutorial misconduct, and sentencing error. Id. ¶ 3. On May 28, 2013, the First District Court 

of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court, but remanded for resentencing. Id. ¶ 4. 

Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which the 

California Supreme Court denied on August 30, 2013. Id. ¶ 5. On October 18, 2013, Petitioner 

was resentenced to a total term of 16 years, 10 months. Id. ¶ 6.

On November 21, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant Petition. ECF No. 1. On February 2, 

2015, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state remedies on the grounds 

that one of Petitioner’s asserted grounds for relief—that the prosecutor committed misconduct in 

closing arguments—was not presented to the California Supreme Court and therefore the petition 

contained an unexhausted claim. ECF No. 7, at 3. Petitioner did not file an opposition to 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss. Rather, on February 17, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to amend 

the petition for writ of habeas corpus, requesting leave to amend the petition to remove 

Petitioner’s unexhausted claim. ECF No. 8, at 1. Also on February 17, 2015, Petitioner filed a 

motion to stay and hold the petition in abeyance so that Petitioner could exhaust a new claim in 

state court. ECF No. 9, at 1.

On July 29, 2015, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition, denied 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss as moot, and denied Petitioner’s motion to stay on the grounds 

that the new claim lacked merit. ECF No. 13. The Court ordered Petitioner to file an amended 

petition within 30 days of the date of the Order. Id. at 13. On August 28, 2015, Petitioner timely 

filed the First Amended Petition. See First Am. Pet. 

Case 5:14-cv-05178-LHK Document 15 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 14-CV-05178-LHK 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

Northern District of California

II. DISCUSSION

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). The 

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.” Id. § 2243.

B. Claims

Petitioner asserts two claims: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s 

convictions; and (2) the trial court failed to adequately inform the jury of the necessary elements 

of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and thereby deprived Petitioner of his right to 

be found guilty unless all elements of the offense are proven to the jury beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Pet. ¶ 18. 

Petitioner’s claims appear cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from Respondent. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Respondent to show cause why the First Amended 

Petition should not be granted.

III.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 Amended Petition

(ECF No. 15) and all attachments thereto on Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney 

General of the State of California. The Clerk shall also 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 

Case 5:14-cv-05178-LHK Document 15 Filed 09/02/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 14-CV-05178-LHK 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

Northern District of California

issues presented by the Amended Petition.

3. 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.

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 within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Order. If Respondent files such a motion, 

Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an Opposition or Statement of Nonopposition 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.

5. 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 also 

keep the Court and all parties informed of any change of address. Petitioner 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: September 2, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-05178-LHK Document 15 Filed 09/02/15 Page 4 of 4