Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04358/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04358-1/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)

---

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

 Petitioner consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

(Docket No. 1 at 7.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KASEEM ADAMS,

Petitioner,

 v.

RON DAVIS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 15-4358 EDL (PR)

ORDER REOPENING CASE;

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On September 23, 2015, petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 On November 4, 2015, the Court

dismissed the petition for failure to pay the filing fee. (Docket No. 3.) That same day,

petitioner paid the filing fee. (Docket No. 5.) Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of the

Court to reopen this case. For the reasons stated below, respondent is ordered to show

cause why the petition should not be granted.

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 appears from the application that

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

Case 3:15-cv-04358-EMC Document 8 Filed 01/06/16 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

B. Background

According to the petition, petitioner was convicted in 1999 pursuant to a plea of nolo

contendere to voluntary manslaughter. The trial court sentenced petition to the “upper

term” of 11 years. Petitioner filed unsuccessful state habeas petitions in each level of the

California courts. The underlying federal petition was filed on September 23, 2015.

C. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that his sentence violates his

Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury, and specifically, Cunningham v. California, 549

U.S. 270, 273 (2007). Liberally construed, the Court orders respondent to show cause why

the petition should not be granted. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall re-open this case.

2. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto, and a magistrate judge consent form upon the respondent and the

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 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. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all

portions of the underlying state criminal record that have been transcribed previously and

that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. At that time,

respondent shall also file his magistrate judge consent form.

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 days of the date the answer is filed.

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

Case 3:15-cv-04358-EMC Document 8 Filed 01/06/16 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

Section 2254 Cases within sixty days of the date this order is filed. If respondent files such

a motion, petitioner shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or

statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of

the date any opposition is filed.

5. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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 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: January , 2016. 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

P:\PRO-SE\EDL\HC.15\Adams358reopen.wpd

6

Case 3:15-cv-04358-EMC Document 8 Filed 01/06/16 Page 3 of 3