Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04663/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04663-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darryl W. Brown
Petitioner
James Walker
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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.09\Brown04663_osc.wpd

1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL W. BROWN, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

JAMES WALKER, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-04663 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California inmate currently incarcerated at the Folsom State Prison in

Represa, proceeding pro se, seeks a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. (Docket

No. 4.) The Court orders Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be

granted. 

STATEMENT

In 2006, Petitioner pleaded guilty to “assault by means of force likely to produce

death or great bodily injury” and making a criminal threat in Santa Clara County Superior

Court. (Pet. 2.) Petitioner was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison. Petitioner

Case 4:09-cv-04663-JSW Document 8 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.09\Brown04663_osc.wpd

2

appealed the conviction, with the Supreme Court denying review on October 16, 2008. 

(Id. at 3.) Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on October 1, 2009. 

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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district 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. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner claims that the trial court

unlawfully denied his request for a Marsden hearing, which violated his right to effective

assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. (Pet. at 6.) Liberally construed,

Petitioner’s claim is cognizable under § 2254. The Court orders Respondent to show

cause why the petition should not be granted. 

CONCLUSION 

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

and all attachments thereto upon 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

(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. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a

Case 4:09-cv-04663-JSW Document 8 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.09\Brown04663_osc.wpd

3

copy of all portions of the state parole 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 (30) days of that the answer is

filed.

3. Alternatively, Respondent may, within sixty (60) days of the date this order

is filed, file 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 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.

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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 and all

parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of

Change of Address.” He 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

2/2/10

Case 4:09-cv-04663-JSW Document 8 Filed 02/10/10 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL BROWN,

Petitioner,

 v.

JAMES WALKER, Warden,

Respondent. /

Case Number: CV09-04663 JF 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Darryl W. Brown J-92658

CA State Prison-Folsom(New)

P.O. Box 290066

Represa, CA 95671

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

2/10/10

2/10/10

Case 4:09-cv-04663-JSW Document 8 Filed 02/10/10 Page 4 of 4