Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04374/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04374-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Price
Respondent
Joseph D. Turner
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

JOSEPH D. TURNER,

Petitioner,

v.

J. PRICE, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-04374-JST (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

challenging a judgment of conviction from Contra Costa County Superior Court. On January 26, 

2015, the Court entered an order noting that the petition was a “mixed” petition, i.e., one that 

included both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The Court therefore directed petitioner to 

choose one of the following three options: (1) dismiss the unexhausted claim and go forward in 

this action with only the exhausted claims; (2) dismiss this action and return to state court to 

exhaust all claims before filing a new federal petition presenting all of his claims; or (3) move to 

stay these proceedings while he exhausts his unexhausted claims in the California Supreme Court. 

Petitioner has filed a notice of election and has opted to drop his unexhausted claims and proceed 

only with the exhausted claims. 

BACKGROUND

In 2011, petitioner was convicted by a jury of first degree robbery, first degree burglary, 

false imprisonment, and criminal threats. He was sentenced to seven years in state prison. His 

conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal on December 30, 2013, and his petition 

for review was denied by the California Supreme Court on March 12, 2014. Petitioner reports that 

Case 3:14-cv-04374-JST Document 4 Filed 04/16/15 Page 1 of 3
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

he did not file any state habeas petitions before filing this action. The instant action was filed on 

September 29, 2014.

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). 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). 

B. Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that: (1) the trial court erroneously 

denied his motion to represent himself, brought pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 896 

(1975); (2) the prosecution failed to produce discovery showing that one of the victims had 

identified petitioner at the crime scene, prior to the in-field show-up; (3) the trial court erroneously 

excluded evidence that one of the victims had been granted immunity in exchange for his 

testimony; (4) the trial court erroneously allowed a late amendment to the information; and (5) the 

late amendment to the information rendered trial counsel ineffective during plea negotiations. 

Liberally construed, the claims appears cognizable under Section 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, and for good cause shown,

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 

Case 3:14-cv-04374-JST Document 4 Filed 04/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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

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. 

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: April 15, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04374-JST Document 4 Filed 04/16/15 Page 3 of 3