Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04612/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04612-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Galaza
Respondent
Erick Brown Johnson
Petitioner
Erick Graham Johnson
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERICK GRAHAM JOHNSON, aka

ERICK BROWN JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

GEORGE GALAZA, Warden,

Respondent.

___________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4612 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee.

BACKGROUND

In 2001, a jury in Santa Clara County Superior Court found petitioner guilty of two

counts of second degree robbery and one count of receiving stolen property. Petitioner was

sentenced to a term of 37 years to life in state prison. The California Court of Appeal

affirmed, and the Supreme Court of California denied the petition for review. Petitioner next

filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus at all three levels of the California courts, which

petitions were denied.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a

Case 3:05-cv-04612-MMC Document 2 Filed 12/22/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

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). The 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. Summary dismissal is appropriate 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) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-

76 (1977)). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims that: (1) the trial court violated petitioner’s right to due process by

denying his motion for discovery of any past complaints against the investigating officers

regarding fabrication of evidence; (2) the trial court violated petitioner’s right to due process

by improperly instructing the jury pursuant to CALJIC 2.15; (3) the prosecutor knowingly

elicited false testimony from a witness, preventing petitioner from receiving the fair trial

guaranteed by due process; (4) the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence from petitioner,

resulting in the violation of petitioner’s due process right to a fair trial; (5) trial counsel was

ineffective in failing to object to false testimony; (6) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to

assure the presence of counsel and petitioner during the readback of testimony during jury

deliberations; and (7) the trial court violated petitioner’s right to due process by improperly

allowing the readback of testimony in the absence of petitioner and his counsel. Liberally

construed, petitioner’s claims are cognizable.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

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

amended petition, along with all attachments thereto, upon respondent and respondent's

attorney, the Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of

this order on petitioner.

Case 3:05-cv-04612-MMC Document 2 Filed 12/22/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 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 have been transcribed

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

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 30 days of his receipt of the answer.

3. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within 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 30 days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the

Court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of receipt of any opposition.

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. 

5. 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).

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

be granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline which they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 22, 2005

 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04612-MMC Document 2 Filed 12/22/05 Page 3 of 3