Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04269/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04269-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeff Macomber
Respondent
Gary B. Moore
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

No. C 15-4269 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

GARY B. MOORE,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER, 

Respondent. /

No. C 15-4269 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

For the second time 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. Respondent

shall file a response to the petition on or before August 15, 2016, unless an extension is

granted. 

BACKGROUND

According to the prior and current petitions, in 2005, a Contra Costa County Superior

Court jury found petitioner guilty of first degree residential burglary and found true

allegations that petitioner had prior strike convictions, had committed prior serious felonies,

Case 3:15-cv-04269-RS Document 12 Filed 05/05/16 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

No. C 15-4269 RS (PR)

2 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

and had served two prior prison terms. In 2006, consequent to the verdicts, the trial court

sentenced petitioner to a total term of 29 years in state prison. 

The present suit is petitioner’s second federal habeas action regarding these same state

criminal convictions. The first habeas petition was denied and judgment entered in favor of

respondent on May 16, 2012. (Case No. 09-1634, Docket Nos. 55 and 56.) Petitioner filed

an appeal, which the Ninth Circuit terminated when it denied his request for a certificate of

appealability on June 20, 2013. (Id., Docket Nos. 61, 64 and 65.) 

In 2015, petitioner obtained an amended judgment from the state courts after filing a

habeas petition in the state appellate court. (Pet., Ex. J.) In that petition, he contended that

two of the three prior convictions found true were not brought and tried separately, as

required by state law. (Id.) The court agreed and directed the superior court to modify the

judgment and set aside one of the sentencing enhancement priors. (Id.) The trial court

modified the judgment and issued a modified abstract of judgment on January 14, 2015,

which sentenced petitioner to 24 years. (Id.) 

DISCUSSION

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court will not dismiss this petition as second or

successive, though a dismissal on such grounds is not foreclosed. Normally, in order to file a

second or successive petition, a petitioner must obtain an order from the court of appeals

authorizing the district court to consider the petition, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), which

petitioner has not obtained. Here, however, an exception presents itself because this petition

challenges the amended state court judgment petitioner received after his prior federal habeas

petition had been denied. “[A] numerically second habeas petition challenging a judgment

imposed after resentencing was not ‘second or successive’ under the AEDPA, where the first

habeas petition was filed prior to resentencing and challenged the original judgment.” 

Wentzell v. Neven, 674 F.3d 1124, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Magwood v. Patterson,

561 U.S. 320, 339 (2010)). Under these standards, it appears this numerically second

petition is not barred. The Court now will screen the petition. 

Case 3:15-cv-04269-RS Document 12 Filed 05/05/16 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

No. C 15-4269 RS (PR)

3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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 claims (1) the trial court violated his

right to due process by imposing a sentence that was illegal in various ways; (2) his sentence

violates the terms of a prior plea agreement; (3) defense counsel rendered ineffective

assistance; and (4) he was denied his Confrontation Clause rights when he was denied the

opportunity to testify and examine witnesses and evidence at his sentencing hearing. 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 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. 

Case 3:15-cv-04269-RS Document 12 Filed 05/05/16 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

No. C 15-4269 RS (PR)

4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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).

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: May 5, 2016 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04269-RS Document 12 Filed 05/05/16 Page 4 of 4