Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05325/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05325-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose N. Beteta
Petitioner
Ken Clark
Respondent

Document Text:

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

No. C 09-5325 RS (PR)

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 7/2/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOSE N. BETETA,

Petitioner,

v.

KEN CLARK, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-5325 RS (PR)

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

VACATING IN PART PREVIOUS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

SETTING NEW FILING SCHEDULE

INTRODUCTION

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner moves to amend his petition (Docket No. 13) under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 15(a), which permits a party to amend his pleading once before being

served with a responsive pleading. As respondent has not filed a responsive pleading,

petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. The Court will now review the amended petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-05325-RS Document 14 Filed 07/02/10 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

No. C 09-5325 RS (PR)

2 SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner was convicted in 2008 of first degree murder, and

was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Seeking to overturn the

conviction, petitioner sought, though was denied, relief on direct and collateral state review. 

This federal habeas petition followed. 

DISCUSSION

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). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that (1) erroneous admission of

impermissibly suggestive identification denied petitioner his right to due process and a fair

trial; (2) there was insufficient evidence that petitioner committed the murder; (3) the trial

judge committed misconduct and was biased; (4) appellate counsel rendered ineffective

assistance in violation of the Sixth Amendment; (5) the trial court violated his right to due

process by admitting evidence of petitioner’s alleged gang affiliation. Liberally construed,

these claims appear to be cognizable in a federal habeas action. 

CONCLUSION 

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

attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the

State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

Case 3:09-cv-05325-RS Document 14 Filed 07/02/10 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

No. C 09-5325 RS (PR)

3 SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (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 claims. Respondent shall file with the answer

and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have

been transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition. 

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

answer is filed. 

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of

the date any opposition is filed.

5. 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. 

6. 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).

//

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-05325-RS Document 14 Filed 07/02/10 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

No. C 09-5325 RS (PR)

4 SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

8. The first order to show cause (Docket No. 7) is VACATED, save for its grant of in

forma pauperis status to petitioner. 

9. This order terminates Docket No. 13. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05325-RS Document 14 Filed 07/02/10 Page 4 of 4