Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03243/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03243-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Debbie Asuncion
Respondent
Carlos Romero Burnett
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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARLOS ROMERO BURNETT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEBBIE ASUNCION, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 18-cv-03243-JD 

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO 

SHOW CAUSE 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 8 

Carlos Burnett, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner was 

convicted in Monterey County, which is in this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2241(d). 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner, who was an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, was found guilty by a jury of 

possessing a weapon at a penal institution. People v. Burnett, No. H042861, 2017 WL 25499, at 

*1 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2017). Petitioner admitted two prior strike convictions and was 

sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life, consecutive to the term he was already serving. Id. 

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. Id. The California Supreme Court 

denied review. Petition at 4. 

DISCUSSION 

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 

Case 3:18-cv-03243-JD Document 9 Filed 07/09/18 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 Californi

a

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 available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 

each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 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)). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

Petitioner’s sole ground for federal habeas relief is that he was denied the right to selfrepresentation under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Liberally construed, this claim is 

sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2, 8) is GRANTED. 

2. The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order and the petition and all 

attachments thereto on respondent and respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of 

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

3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within fifty-six (56) 

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. 

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 twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the answer. 

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 

Case 3:18-cv-03243-JD Document 9 Filed 07/09/18 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 Californi

a

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, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the date this order 

is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, 

and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days 

of receipt of any opposition. 

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. 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 9, 2018 

 

JAMES DONATO 

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-03243-JD Document 9 Filed 07/09/18 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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARLOS ROMERO BURNETT,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEBBIE ASUNCION, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 18-cv-03243-JD 

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 July 9, 2018, 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. 

Carlos Romero Burnett ID: K-51273

California State Prison - Los Angeles

CSP - Los Angeles County

P.O. Box 8457 

Lancaster, CA 93539-8457 

Dated: July 9, 2018 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO 

Case 3:18-cv-03243-JD Document 9 Filed 07/09/18 Page 4 of 4