Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06628/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06628-0/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

Order Granting Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Brown628ifposc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT FITZGERALD BROWN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-6628 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

(Docket Nos. 2, 3)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and two motions to proceed in forma pauperis. The

Court will grant Petitioner’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (docket nos. 2, 3) and 

order Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, a Santa Clara Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of

personally using a firearm pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 12022.53. Petitioner was

sentenced to ten years in state prison. Petitioner appealed his conviction. The state

appellate court affirmed the judgment on August 10, 2005. The state supreme court

denied a petition for review on October 19, 2005. The instant federal habeas petition was

filed on October 24, 2006. 

**Original filed 3/1/07**

Case 5:06-cv-06628-JF Document 4 Filed 03/01/07 Page 1 of 4
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 Granting Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Brown628ifposc 2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district 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 alleges the following claims for federal habeas relief: (1) there was

insufficient evidence of his use of a firearm as a matter if law, in violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause; (2) the trial court’s modified, erroneous and

misleading instruction under CALCIC No. 2.01 that circumstantial evidence sufficed to

prove the firearm allegations resulted in a miscarriage of justice; and (3) the trial court’s

instruction for criminal liability as to count two as an aider and abettor under the natural

and probable consequences doctrine was reversible error. Liberally construed,

Petitioner’s claims are sufficient to require a response. The Court orders Respondent to

show cause why the petition should not be granted.

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (docket nos. 2, 3) are 

GRANTED. 

2. The Clerk shall serve by mail 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. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the Petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty

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

Case 5:06-cv-06628-JF Document 4 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 4
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 Granting Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Brown628ifposc 3

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 a copy on Respondent within thirty 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. 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 days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and

serve on Petitioner a reply within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

5. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court and all parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper

captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He 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: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

3/1/07

Case 5:06-cv-06628-JF Document 4 Filed 03/01/07 Page 3 of 4
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 Granting Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Brown628ifposc 4

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

Robert Fitzgerald Brown

V-63609

CTF -Soledad

P.O. Box 689

Soledad, CA 93960-0689

Case 5:06-cv-06628-JF Document 4 Filed 03/01/07 Page 4 of 4