Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01933/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01933-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kalvin N. Craven
Petitioner
Jim Robertson
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

KALVIN N. CRAVEN,

Petitioner,

v.

JIM ROBERTSON,

Respondent.

Case No. 20-cv-01933-SI 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Kalvin Craven, an inmate at the Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His 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. 

BACKGROUND

The petition provides the following information: After a jury trial in Alameda County 

Superior Court, Kalvin Craven was found guilty of four counts of robbery and was found to have 

personally used a firearm in the commission of the offenses. He was resentenced on June 29, 2018, 

to a prison term of 28 years. 

He appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction in 2018 and the 

California Supreme Court denied his petition for review in 2019. He also filed a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus in the Alameda County Superior Court that was denied in 2020. He then filed this 

action. 

Case 3:20-cv-01933-SI Document 7 Filed 04/14/20 Page 1 of 3
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.

The federal petition for writ of habeas corpus contains three claims. First, Craven alleges 

that his right to due process was violated by the erroneous admission of two cell phone videos that 

depicted him riding in a car with a gun on his lap as he made shooting gestures with his hand. The 

events depicted in the videos were not shown to have any connection to the charged robberies. 

Second, he alleges that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by an ex parte 

communication between the trial judge and the jurors. He alleges that, had counsel been present or 

made aware of the juror’s question, counsel could have made sure the juror’s question was answered 

so that the jurors understood the law before reaching a verdict. Third, Craven alleges that he 

received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to move to suppress the highly 

prejudicial videos obtained from Craven’s cell phone without a warrant. Liberally construed, these 

claims are cognizable in a federal habeas action and warrant a response.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

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

2. The clerk shall electronically serve a copy of this order upon respondent and 

respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email 

address: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov. The petition and any exhibits thereto are available via the 

Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system for the Northern District of California. The clerk also shall 

serve by mail a copy of this order on petitioner. 

Case 3:20-cv-01933-SI Document 7 Filed 04/14/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before July 17, 2020, 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.

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 August 28, 2020. 

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 the first page of any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case.

7. Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a completed in forma pauperis

application by May 22, 2020, or the action may be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-01933-SI Document 7 Filed 04/14/20 Page 3 of 3