Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04199/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04199-0/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)

---

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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\HC.07\walkerroy.osc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY WALKER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

SCRIBNER,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

C 07-4199 MJJ (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docket No. 4)

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed this pro se habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

BACKGROUND

In 2004, petitioner was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court of first degree

murder and related firearm allegations. He was sentenced to a term of life in prison without

the possibility of parole, plus 22 years, in state prison. The California Court of Appeal

affirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Court of California denied review. A subsequent

habeas petition was also denied by the Supreme Court of California. 

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);

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

Case 4:07-cv-04199-PJH Document 5 Filed 09/27/07 Page 1 of 3
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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\HC.07\walkerroy.osc.wpd 2

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28

U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of his

right to due process; (2) the trial court violated his right to due process and to counsel by

instructing the jury on a new defense theory during deliberations; and (3) the trial court

violated his right to due process and to present a defense by refusing his requested

instructions on self-defense and imperfect self-defense. Liberally construed, these claims are

cognizable.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order,

petition, and all attachments thereto, upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney

General for 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 90 days of

the date this order is filed, 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 based on petitioner’s cognizable claim. 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 30 days of his receipt of the answer.

3. Respondent may, within 90 days, 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 within

30 days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Case 4:07-cv-04199-PJH Document 5 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 3
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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\HC.07\walkerroy.osc.wpd 3

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 true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. 

5. It is petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and 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).

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will

be granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline which they seek to extend.

7. In light of petitioner’s lack of funds, the application to proceed in forma

pauperis is GRANTED.

This order terminates docket number 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 09/26/07

 MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04199-PJH Document 5 Filed 09/27/07 Page 3 of 3