Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-04217/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-04217-0/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

CARL LEOPOLD,

Petitioner,

v.

C. A. TERHUNE,

Respondent. _________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 01-4217 SBA (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. Petitioner has paid the $ 5.00 filing fee. Venue is proper because Petitioner is challenging a

conviction and sentence imposed by the Alameda County Superior Court, which is located in this judicial

district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted in the Alameda County Superior Court for murder with special

circumstances, attempted murder and robbery. He was sentenced to life without parole, plus thirty-two

years in prison. On May 31, 2000, the state appellate court affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence. 

On August 30, 2000, the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review.

On November 13, 2001, Petitioner filed his federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. At the

time Petitioner filed his original petition, he was represented by counsel. Petitioner asserted one claim in his

original petition, and he promptly requested a stay of these proceedings to permit him to return to state

court to exhaust additional claims. The Court granted the motion to stay proceedings, and Petitioner filed a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court on July 11, 2002. On April 30, 2003,

the California Supreme Court rejected Petitioner's additional claims.

On May 14, 2003, Petitioner's counsel withdrew from his representation of Petitioner. On

May 15, 2003, Petitioner requested that the Court appoint counsel to represent him at public expense. The

stay was lifted nunc pro tunc on May 15, 2003. (See Order dated April 23, 2004 at 4.) The Court denied

Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel in an Order dated December 17, 2003 and granted

Case 4:01-cv-04217-SBA Document 26 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 Originally, the Court dismissed the section of this claim pertaining to ineffective assistance of

appellate counsel because the "addition of the claim by amendment does not relate back to the filing date of

the original petition." (See Order dated April 23, 2004 at 2.) However, after the Court issued its April 23,

2004 Order, the Ninth Circuit held that habeas claims raised in an amended petition can relate back to the

original petition. See Felix v. Mayle, 379 F.3d 612, 616-17 (9th Cir. 2004) (new coerced confession

claim related back to the original petition that raised only a factually distinct Confrontation Clause claim). 

Therefore, the Court reinstates Petitioner's claim that "reversal is required because of the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendment violations to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because he failed to include

the complete reporters [sic] transcripts necessary for presentation of potential appellate arguments which is

a Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment violation." Am. Pet. at 7. 

2

Petitioner's request for an extension to file an amended petition. 

Petitioner apparently prepared his amended petition without professional assistance and filed it on

April 7, 2004. On April 23, 2004, the Court issued an Order upon reviewing Petitioner's first amended

petition. In that Order, the Court stated that Petitioner's original petition, which was prepared by an

attorney, identified several claims he expected to present in a habeas petition to the state courts and then

add to his federal petition by way of amendment. In his first amended petition, Petitioner asserted only two

claims for relief. Because Petitioner did not assert any of the other potential claims that were identified in

his original petition, the Court provided Petitioner an opportunity to file a second amended petition to

include additional claims.

The Court now reviews Petitioner's second amended petition filed on May 25, 2004. As grounds

for federal habeas relief, Petitioner raises three claims, each asserting federal grounds for relief and each

allegedly exhausted in his petition for review and petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California

Supreme Court. Petitioner asserts:

(1) that his due process rights were violated when the trial court admitted the guilty pleas of his

two co-defendants, even though only one of those co-defendants testified at trial;

(2) that the appellate court's order "precluded Petitioner from obtaining a complete trial record

solely because Petitioner was too poor violated Petitioner's federal and state constitutional rights to due

process, equal protection and . . . effective assistance of counsel;"1

 and

(3) ineffective assistance of his trial and appellate counsels, in violation of the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments and the State Constitution.

Second Am. Pet. at 6-7.

Petitioner's claims are sufficient to require a response because he asserts federal grounds for relief

Case 4:01-cv-04217-SBA Document 26 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 4
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

and alleges that his remedies with respect to each claim raised have been fully exhausted either in

Petitioner's petition for review or in his state habeas corpus petition.

DISCUSSION

A district court may entertain a petition for a 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); see Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S.

19, 21 (1975). The court shall issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should

not be granted unless it plainly appears from the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See 28

U.S.C. § 2243; Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.

Because it appears that Petitioner has fully exhausted his remedies with respect to each claim he

raises in his federal petition, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); because it appears that the petition was timely

filed, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); and because Petitioner raises claims cognizable in a petition filed pursuant

to § 2254, Respondent is directed to SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be granted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified 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 at his most current address. 

2. Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, no later than forty-five (45)

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 issued. Respondent shall

file with the Answer 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 no later than forty-five (45) days of his receipt of the Answer. Should Petitioner

fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision forty-five (45) days after the

Case 4:01-cv-04217-SBA Document 26 Filed 05/18/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

date Petitioner is served with Respondent's Answer. 

3. 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 to the motion no later than forty-five (45) days of receipt of the motion,

and Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner a reply no later than fifteen (15) days of

receipt of any opposition.

4. It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk of the Court 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). 

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court, whether by way of formal

legal motions or informal letters, must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to

Respondent's counsel. 

6. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. 

However, the party making a motion for an extension of time is not relieved from his or her duty to comply

with the deadlines set by the Court merely by having made a motion for an extension of time. The party

making the motion must still meet the deadlines set by the Court until an order addressing the motion for an

extension of time is issued. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than fifteen (15)

days prior to the deadline sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 5/17/05 s/Saundra Brown Armstrong

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cv-04217-SBA Document 26 Filed 05/18/05 Page 4 of 4