Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00845/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00845-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Baughman
Respondent
Ron Davis
Respondent
Patrick Shields
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK SHIELDS, 

Petitioner, 

 v.

RON DAVIS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 19-0845 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; DIRECTING

PETITIONER TO PAY FILING FEE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging his state court conviction. For the reasons discussed

below, respondent is ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted. 

Petitioner’s prison trust account documents demonstrate he has sufficient funds to pay

the $5.00 filing fee. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is, therefore, DENIED. Petitioner must

pay the $5.00 filing fee on or before April 1, 2019, or the case will be dismissed. 

STATEMENT

Petitioner was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court in 2015 for premeditated

murder and sentenced to a term of 25 years to life in state prison. His appeal to the California

Court of Appeals was denied. The California Supreme Court denied his petition for review. 

Thereafter, petitioner filed the instant federal petition.

ANALYSIS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

Case 3:19-cv-00845-WHA Document 6 Filed 02/21/19 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

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). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not

sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of

constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Petitioner claims that the trial court’s refusal to give jury instructions on lesser-included

offenses deprived petitioner of a fair opportunity to present a defense, in violation of his right to

due process. This claim, when liberally construed, and warrants a response. 

CONCLUSION 

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 the petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty-three (63)

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 claim found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and

serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state prison disciplinary proceedings 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 twenty-eight days of the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within sixty-three (63) days, a motion to dismiss on procedural

Case 3:19-cv-00845-WHA Document 6 Filed 02/21/19 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

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 days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and

serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen 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). 

5. The petition is deemed to have named the proper respondent, the Warden of his

prison, David Baughman. See Stanley v. Cal. Sup. Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994)

(warden of petitioner’s inmate is proper respondent); see also Dubrin v. California, 720 F.3d

1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2013) (instructing district court to deem petitioner’s pro se petition to have

named proper respondent). The clerk is instructed to change the name of the respondent on the

docket sheet accordingly. 

6. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing

fee on or before April 1, 2019, or the case will be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February , 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21

Case 3:19-cv-00845-WHA Document 6 Filed 02/21/19 Page 3 of 3