Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07854/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07854-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW THOMAS UPTON,

Petitioner, 

 v.

KNOWES, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-7854 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison, has

filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the

filing fee. 

Venue is proper because the conviction was obtained in Santa Clara County, which is in

this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

STATEMENT

A jury convicted petitioner of four counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child. He

was sentenced to six years in prison. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the

California Court of Appeal, and he did not petition the California Supreme Court for review. 

He contends he has exhausted the issues raised here by way of state habeas petitions. 

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

Case 3:06-cv-07854-WHA Document 2 Filed 01/05/07 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

2

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. Summary dismissal is

appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably

incredible, or patently frivolous or false. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir.

1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) his counsel was

ineffective in failing to call a computer forensics expert; and (2) his counsel was ineffective and

his right against self-incrimination violated when counsel coerced him into testifying regarding

technical computer matters about which he was not qualified. These claims are sufficient to

require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the

respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The

clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of

service 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 days of service of the answer.

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer,

as set forth in Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a

Case 3:06-cv-07854-WHA Document 2 Filed 01/05/07 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

3

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 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 copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Papers intended to be

filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk rather than to the undersigned. Petitioner also

must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk

headed “Notice of Change of Address,” and comply with any orders of the court within the time

allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. 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). See Martinez

v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.06\UPTON854.OSC

Case 3:06-cv-07854-WHA Document 2 Filed 01/05/07 Page 3 of 3