Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00195/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00195-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
McDonald
Respondent
Edward Smith
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

No. C 10-0195 RS (PR)

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 6/23/15*

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

EDWARD SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

M.D. MCDONALD, 

Respondent. /

No. C 10-0195 RS (PR)

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his state convictions. The amended petition

for such relief is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent shall file a response to the operative

petition on or before October 1, 2015, unless an extension is granted. 

The petition may be untimely. Petitioner was convicted in 2006 and filed the instant

action in 2010. Respondent is directed to consider whether a motion to dismiss on grounds

of untimeliness is appropriate. If he concludes that the petition is untimely, he may file a

motion to dismiss on such grounds, though he is not required to do so. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, in 2006 an Alameda County Superior Court jury convicted

petitioner of second degree murder and the possession of a firearm by a felon. He was

sentenced to 60 years to life in state prison. Petitioner sought, and was denied, relief on

Case 3:10-cv-00195-RS Document 19 Filed 06/23/15 Page 1 of 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

No. C 10-0195 RS (PR)

2 SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

direct state review. 

In 2010, petitioner filed his first federal habeas petition, in response to which the

Court issued an order to show cause to respondent. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on

grounds that petitioner failed to exhaust some of his claims. The Court stayed the action so

that petitioner could. Once his claims were exhausted, the action was reopened, and

petitioner filed an amended petition (Docket No. 18), which is the operative petition in this

action. 

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). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that defense counsel rendered

ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment in various ways

described in the amended petition. Liberally construed, these claims appear to be cognizable

in a federal habeas action. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the operative petition (Docket No. 18)

and all attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General

for 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 (90)

days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

Case 3:10-cv-00195-RS Document 19 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 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

No. C 10-0195 RS (PR)

3 SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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 previously have

been transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition. 

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

answer is filed. 

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) 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 thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of

the date any opposition is filed.

5. 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. 

6. 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).

7. 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: June 23, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00195-RS Document 19 Filed 06/23/15 Page 3 of 3