Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-00586/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-00586-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMY LEE CARTER,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM DUNCAN, Warden,

Respondent.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-0586 SBA (pr)

THIRD ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE AND

ORDER FOR

FURTHER BRIEFING

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner raised six grounds for relief on his original petition: (1) the prosecution

exercised its peremptory challenges in violation of the Equal Protection Clause; (2) the trial court erred

in failing to excuse a juror for cause, in violation of Petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights; (3) the trial

court erred in admitting identification testimony that was based on a suggestive photographic array;

(4) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove that Petitioner ever possessed a gun;

(5) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove that Petitioner ever possessed ammunition;

and (6) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of third party culpability in violation of Petitioner's due

process rights. 

In an Order dated March 20, 2003, the Court found that Claims One through Five were fully

exhausted and that Claim Six was unexhausted. Respondent had already filed its Answer on August 8,

2002 as to Claims One and Two, because the Court found that the first two claims were exhausted in

its Order dated May 17, 2002. Therefore, in its March 20, 2003 Order, the Court ordered Petitioner

to file a Third Amended Petition asserting Claims One through Five from his original petition and also

ordered Respondent to amend its Answer to show why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued as

to Claims Three to Five. Petitioner filed his Third Amended Petition on April 11, 2003. Respondent

filed an Amended Answer on July 9, 2003.

Upon conducting another review of Petitioner's petition for review to the California Supreme

Court, the Court now finds that Claim Six -- that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of third

Case 4:02-cv-00586-SBA Document 44 Filed 05/03/05 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

party culpability at his trial -- is exhausted. Petitioner did not attach pages 23 and 24 of his petition for

review when he lodged it as an exhibit in support of his Second Amended Petition dated May 8, 2002. 

Therefore, the Court initially found Claim Six to be unexhausted because on pages 25 and 26 of the

petition for review, Petitioner only cited two state cases in support of the claim. Based on its review of

only pages 25 and 26 of the petition of review, the Court concluded that Petitioner did not mention his

federal right to due process or his right to a fair trial with respect to this claim. Respondent has since

lodged with the Court a complete copy of Petitioner's petition for review with the California Supreme

Court. See Resp't Ex. C-1. The Court has reviewed pages 23 and 24 of the petition of review, where

the Petitioner clearly mentions a violation of his federal due process rights to a fair trial with respect to

Claim Six. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner fulfilled the exhaustion requirement as to his claim

that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of third party culpability in violation of his due process

rights.

Respondent must show cause why the writ should not issue as to Claim Six or file a statement of

non-opposition to the issuance of the writ on those two claims. And Petitioner must be given an

opportunity to file a traverse to any further briefing by Respondent. Accordingly, the Court now sets

the following schedule for supplemental briefing:

1. No later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Respondent must file and

serve a supplemental answer and memorandum of points and authorities showing cause why the Court

should not grant the writ as to Petitioner's claim that his right to due process was violated when the trial

court erred in excluding evidence of third party culpability. If Respondent does not oppose the issuance

of the writ on Claim Six, he must file and serve a statement of non-opposition by the deadline stated

above.

2. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the supplemental answer, he must do so by filing and

serving any supplemental traverse no later than forty-five (45) days from the date Respondent files his

supplemental answer. Should Petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready

for decision on the date his supplemental traverse is due.

Case 4:02-cv-00586-SBA Document 44 Filed 05/03/05 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 5/3/05

s/Saundra Brown Armstrong

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-00586-SBA Document 44 Filed 05/03/05 Page 3 of 3