Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06601/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06601-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kim Holland
Respondent
Welford Lee Johnson
Petitioner

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WELFORD LEE JOHNSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

KIM HOLLAND, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 16-cv-06601-RS (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION 

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state 

convictions. The petition for such relief is now before the Court for review pursuant to 

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

The petition appears untimely. Petitioner was convicted in 1997 and the petition 

was not filed until 2016, which is certainly outside the one-year statute of limitations 

period for filing a federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Respondent is 

directed to consider first if the petition is in fact untimely. If respondent concludes 

that it is untimely, he may file a motion to dismiss on such grounds, though he is not 

required to do so. 

Case 3:16-cv-06601-RS Document 9 Filed 01/13/17 Page 1 of 3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

CASE NO. 16-cv-06601-RS (PR)

2 

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 

Northern District of California 

BACKGROUND 

According to the petition, in 1997, in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, 

petitioner pleaded guilty to charges of robbery and reckless driving. He was sentenced to 

30 years and 4 months in state prison. 

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 his sentence is 

unconstitutional for the reasons listed in the petition. When liberally construed, these 

claims are cognizable on federal habeas review. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall serve 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. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within sixty (60) 

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 

Case 3:16-cv-06601-RS Document 9 Filed 01/13/17 Page 2 of 3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

CASE NO. 16-cv-06601-RS (PR)

3 

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 

Northern District of California 

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 sixty (60) 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). 

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 Court notes that the filing fee has been paid. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January___, 2017

_________________________ 

 RICHARD SEEBORG 

 United States District Judge 

13

Case 3:16-cv-06601-RS Document 9 Filed 01/13/17 Page 3 of 3