Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05602/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05602-1/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. 09-CV-05602-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 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

DINO LOREN SMITH, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

GARY SWARTHOUT, 

 Respondent. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 09-CV-05602-LHK

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

On November 25, 2009, Petitioner Dino Loren Smith (“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 State Prison, Solano, in Vacaville, California. ECF No. 1. On May 15, 

2013, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 15 (“Pet.”). For 

good cause shown, the Court hereby ORDERS Respondent to show cause why the Amended 

Petition should not be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND 

According to the Amended Petition, this case involves a high profile San Francisco jewel 

heist where two men broke into a vacant storefront. Pet. ¶ 168. Once inside the store, the men hid 

until the staff’s arrival in the morning. When the four employees arrived, they were overpowered 

at gunpoint, and made to open the safes. The men then took millions in jewels and escaped the 

same way they had come in. On June 3, 2004, Petitioner, the first of the suspects to stand trial, was 

apprehended in Queens, New York. Id. ¶ 222. 

Case 5:09-cv-05602-LHK Document 27 Filed 08/13/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

Case No. 09-CV-05602-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 

For the Northern District of California 

On March 8, 2005, Petitioner was charged with fourteen counts, including four counts of 

second-degree robbery, two counts of kidnapping, four counts of false imprisonment, two counts of 

commercial burglary, one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and one count of 

conspiracy to commit robbery. Pet. ¶ 10. The information alleged, among other things, two prior 

strike convictions. Id. ¶ 12. On May 3, 2005, the matter proceeded to trial. Id. ¶ 13. On June 3, 

2005, the jury found Petitioner guilty of three of the four charged robberies, three of the four 

charged false imprisonments, one count of burglary, and conspiracy. Id. ¶ 17. 

On November 10, 2005, the trial court denied Petitioner’s Motion for a New Trial. Pet. 

¶¶ 23-24. The trial court then struck two of the prior strikes. Id. ¶ 22. Petitioner was subsequently 

sentenced to twenty-three years’ imprisonment. Id. ¶ 24. Petitioner appealed, and on December 

20, 2007, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. Thereafter, 

Petitioned filed a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court (Case No. S160467), and 

review was granted on April 09, 2008. Id. ¶ 28. The California Supreme Court dismissed the 

Petition and remanded the matter to the First District Court of Appeal on August 27, 2008. Id. 

¶ 29. The First District Court of Appeal issued its Remittitur on September 5, 2008. Id. ¶ 30. 

On November 25, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in 

federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). ECF No. 1. Petitioner subsequently filed an 

unopposed Motion to Stay the Federal Habeas Petition Pending Exhaustion of Claims in State 

Court. ECF No. 10. U.S. District Judge James Ware granted the Motion to Stay on March 5, 2010, 

and administratively closed the case. ECF No. 12. 

On May 15, 2013, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See 

Pet. In the Amended Petition, Petitioner indicated that state court proceedings on several of his 

claims remained ongoing and accordingly asked that the stay remain in place. Id. at 106. In spite 

of this, the case was reopened on June 25, 2013, and reassigned to the undersigned judge. ECF No. 

20. 

On January 15, 2014, the Court reinstated the stay because state court proceedings on 

Petitioner’s claims were still in progress. ECF No. 23. Within thirty days of a final decision by the 

Case 5:09-cv-05602-LHK Document 27 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

Case No. 09-CV-05602-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 

For the Northern District of California 

state court on Petitioner’s unexhausted claims, any party would be allowed to move to reopen the 

case. Id. at 2. 

On October 22, 2014, the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s Successive Petition 

for Habeas Corpus, thereby completing his exhaustion of all claims. ECF No. 24, Ex. A. On 

November 18, 2014, Petitioner moved to reopen the instant matter of his federal Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus and lift the stay of proceedings. ECF No. 24. 

On August 13, 2015, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to reopen and lifted the stay that 

had been in place since January 15, 2014. ECF No. 26. 

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 nine claims: (1) Petitioner was deprived of due process of law and a fair 

trial by the prosecution’s failure to turn over material and exculpatory evidence and witnesses in 

violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); (2) prosecutorial misconduct; (3) ineffective 

assistance of counsel; (4) Petitioner was denied his due process rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 

384 U.S. 436 (1966); (5) insufficient evidence; (6) improper jury instructions; (7) cumulative 

prejudice; (8) Petitioner was denied his right to self-representation; and (9) Petitioner’s sentence is 

unconstitutional. Pet. ¶¶ 58-93. 

The claims appear cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from Respondent. 

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

should not be granted. 

 

Case 5:09-cv-05602-LHK Document 27 Filed 08/13/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

Case No. 09-CV-05602-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 

For the Northern District of California 

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 

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 Non-opposition 

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: August 13, 2015 _________________________________ 

 LUCY H. KOH 

 United States District Judge 

Case 5:09-cv-05602-LHK Document 27 Filed 08/13/15 Page 4 of 4