Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07497/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07497-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stu Sherman
Respondent
Kevin Tran
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

KEVIN TRAN,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-07497-JCS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Dkt. Nos. 2 and 3

INTRODUCTION

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

convictions. The petition for such relief is here for review under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

The petition appears to be untimely. Petitioner was convicted in 2012 and the 

instant petition was not filed until 2018, which is outside the one-year statute of limitations 

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

two years between when the state supreme court denied his petition for direct review 

(2016) and when the instant petition was filed. The first state habeas petition was not filed 

until 2018, according to the petition. 

Respondent is directed to consider first whether 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.

On or before April 29, 2019, respondent shall file in response to the petition an 

answer or a dispositive motion. 

Case 3:18-cv-07497-JCS Document 8 Filed 02/20/19 Page 1 of 4
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 2012 petitioner was convicted in the Santa Clara 

Superior Court of conspiracy to commit murder; kidnapping for ransom; and false 

imprisonment. A sentence of 52 years to life was imposed. 

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 claims that (1) defense counsel 

rendered ineffective assistance; (2) the prosecutor presented false evidence; (3) appellate 

counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and (4) there was cumulative error. 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, and a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form 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. On or before April 29, 2019, respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 

petitioner 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 

Case 3:18-cv-07497-JCS Document 8 Filed 02/20/19 Page 2 of 4
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

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, on or before April 29, 2019, 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 nonopposition 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. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. Nos. 2 and 3) is 

GRANTED. 

9. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2019

_________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-07497-JCS Document 8 Filed 02/20/19 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN TRAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STU SHERMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-07497-JCS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on February 20, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Kevin Tran ID: #AN8985

California Substance Abuse Treament Facility, State Prison

P.O. Box 5248

Corcoran, CA 93212 

Dated: February 20, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JOSEPH C. SPERO

Case 3:18-cv-07497-JCS Document 8 Filed 02/20/19 Page 4 of 4