Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04909/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04909-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Renan Martinez
Petitioner
Stuart Sherman
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

RENAN MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

STUART SHERMAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-04909-SI 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7

Renan Martinez filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. The 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. Martinez’s 

request for appointment of counsel and application to proceed in forma pauperis also are before 

the court for consideration. 

BACKGROUND

Martinez was convicted in Santa Clara County Superior Court of second degree murder 

and was found to have suffered prior convictions. On February 8, 2013, he was sentenced to a 

total of thirty years to life in prison. 

Martinez appealed. His conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal on 

February 9, 2016, and his petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court on 

May 25, 2016. He then filed this action. 

Case 3:16-cv-04909-SI Document 8 Filed 12/05/16 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

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). 

The petition alleges the following claims: (1) Martinez’s constitutional rights to present a 

defense and to due process were violated when the trial court refused to instruct on less culpable 

offenses and precluded defense counsel from arguing the defense theory of the case while 

permitting certain argument by the prosecutor; (2) the trial court’s refusal to instruct on 

manslaughter violated Martinez’s right to due process; (3) “the unequal treatment of the defense 

counsel’s and prosecutor’s requests [for] instructions and argument on uncharged mental states 

violated [p]etitioner’s federal due process rights,” Docket No. 1 at 15; (4) “any advice from 

counsel that there was a reasonable probability of acquittal was unsound,” and infected Martinez’s 

decision to refuse a plea offer, id. at 16; (5) “because state law entitled petitioner to instructions on 

manslaughter, the state courts could not apply a narrower definition of manslaughter retroactively 

to petitioner,” id. at 17 (citing Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 353 (1964)); (6) the 

admission of prejudicial evidence of prior bad acts was “federal constitutional error,” id. at 18; and 

(7) the cumulative effect of the foregoing errors warrants relief. Liberally construed, the claims 

appear to be cognizable in a federal habeas action and warrant a response. 

The petition states that it “incorporates by reference” the “entire record” of Martinez’s

state court proceedings. Docket No. 1 at 20. The global incorporation by reference of state court 

records is unacceptable because this court does not have full and ready access to state court 

records. A federal habeas court relies on the parties to file a copy of the portions of the state court 

Case 3:16-cv-04909-SI Document 8 Filed 12/05/16 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

records they want the federal habeas court to consider. Typically, and here, the respondent is 

ordered to file a copy of all portions of the state court record that have been transcribed and are 

relevant to the issues presented by the petition. As a result, a petitioner usually does not have to 

provide any part of the state court record, but if he wants this court to consider a part of the state 

court record that respondent does not file, the petitioner must file with his traverse a copy of only 

that part of the state court record. 

Martinez has requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A district 

court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the 

interests of justice so require” and such person is financially unable to obtain representation. 18 

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district 

court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Appointment is mandatory only 

when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent 

due process violations. See id. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in 

this action in which the issues were briefed by counsel on appeal. The request for appointment of 

counsel is DENIED. Docket No. 3.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states cognizable claims for habeas relief and warrants a response. 

2. The clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments thereto 

upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The 

clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before February 10, 2017, 

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 issued. Respondent must file with the 

answer a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and 

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

Case 3:16-cv-04909-SI Document 8 Filed 12/05/16 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

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with 

the court and serving it on respondent on or before March 10, 2017. 

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. Petitioner must promptly keep 

the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely 

fashion.

6. Petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this 

case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case.

7. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket No. 3

8. Petitioner’s in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. Docket Nos. 2, 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-04909-SI Document 8 Filed 12/05/16 Page 4 of 4