Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05699/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05699-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derrick A. Cooper
Petitioner
Robert Neuschmid
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK A. COOPER,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT NEUSCHMID,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-05699-JST 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, an inmate at Solano State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the Court for review 

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

States District Courts. He has paid the filing fee. Dkt. No. 1.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, in 2014, Petitioner was convicted by a Contra Costa County jury 

of first degree murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187) and participation in a criminal street gang (Cal. 

Penal Code § 182.5), with enhancements. Dkt. No. 1 (“Pet.”) at 1-2. Petitioner was sentenced to a 

total term of 50 years to life in prison. Pet. at 1. In 2017, petitioner’s conviction was affirmed by 

the California Court of Appeal in 2018, but his case was remanded to the trial court for the limited 

purposes of holding a Franklin hearing and to consider whether the section 12022.53 enhancement 

should be struck pursuant to section 1385. Pet. at 3. In 2018, petitioner’s petition for review was

denied by the California Supreme Court. Pet. at 1. Petitioner filed a habeas petition with the 

California Supreme Court, which was denied on July 10, 2019. Pet. at 1. The instant action was 

filed on September 10, 2019. See Pet.

Case 4:19-cv-05699-JST Document 5 Filed 10/01/19 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

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. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner claims that: (1) the trial court’s refusal to 

allow trial counsel to impeach Desiree Baker’s trial testimony with a video recording of her 

demeanor and prior inconsistent statements violated petitioner’s right to confrontation, his right to 

present a complete defense, and his right to compulsory process; (2) the trial court’s refusal to 

allow trial counsel to cross-examine Tanisha Evans about texts and photos that she sent to Sabrina 

Kim violated petitioner’s right to confrontation, his right to present a complete defense, and his 

right to compulsory process; (3) trial counsel was ineffective when she failed to object when the 

prosecutor committed misconduct by vouching for his witnesses’ credibility; (4) cumulative errors 

from Claim Nos. 1 through 3; (5) the prosecutor committed misconduct when he failed to present 

and respect exculpatory evidence related to petitioner’s cell phone tower data records and 

Shotspotter alert records; (6) the prosecutor committed misconduct when he failed to present and 

respect exculpatory evidence related to Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriff Jesus Topete’s report; 

(7) trial counsel was ineffective when she failed to subpoena and present the exculpatory 

testimony of Laura Herrera; (8) the trial court’s denial of petitioner’s motion to suppress pursuant 

to Cal. Penal Code § 1538.5 violated petitioner’s rights under the Fourth Amendment; (9) the gang 

expert’s testimony relied on inadmissible hearsay, thereby violating petitioner’s right to 

confrontation. 

Claim No. 8 fails to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. Stone v. Powell, 428 

U.S. 465, 481-82, 494 (1976), bars federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims unless the 

Case 4:19-cv-05699-JST Document 5 Filed 10/01/19 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

state did not provide an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims. The existence of a 

state procedure allowing an opportunity for full and fair litigation of Fourth Amendment claims, 

rather than a defendant’s actual use of those procedures, bars federal habeas consideration of those 

claims. See Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613–14 (9th Cir. 1990) (whether or not defendant 

litigated Fourth Amendment claim in state court is irrelevant if he had opportunity to do so under 

California law). Even if the state courts’ determination of the Fourth Amendment issues is 

improper, it will not be remedied in federal habeas corpus actions so long as the petitioner was 

provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. See Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d 403, 408 

(9th Cir. 1983). Under California law, a criminal defendant can move to suppress evidence on the 

basis that it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment; such procedure provides an 

opportunity for full and fair litigation of Fourth Amendment claims. See Gordon, 895 F.2d at 613-

14 (citing Cal. Penal Code § 1538.5). Petitioner acknowledges that he had a hearing pursuant to 

Cal. Penal Code § 1538.5. Claim No. 8 is therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim for 

federal habeas relief.

Liberally construed, the remaining claims appear cognizable under § 2254 and merit an 

answer from Respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal 

courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to 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 Petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety-one

(91) days of the issuance of this order, 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 the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on 

Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and 

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

Case 4:19-cv-05699-JST Document 5 Filed 10/01/19 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

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-five (35) days of the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within ninety-one (91) days, 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 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 

twenty-eight (28) days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent shall file with the Court 

and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any opposition is filed.

4. 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 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). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 

(5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

5. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-05699-JST Document 5 Filed 10/01/19 Page 4 of 4