Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03286/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03286-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. S. Evans
Respondent
Jose Robert Gutierrez
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

JOSE ROBERT GUTIERREZ,

Petitioner, 

 v.

M. S. EVANS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-3286 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison,

has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid

the filing fee. 

Venue is proper because the conviction was obtained in Monterey County, which is in

this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

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). 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

Case 3:08-cv-03286-WHA Document 4 Filed 08/01/08 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

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 § 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). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient

are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d

1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. CLAIMS

A jury convicted petitioner of one count of first degree murder and two counts of

attempted deliberate and premeditated murder. With sentencing enhancements, he was

sentenced to prison for 125 years to life. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the

California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court denied review. 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) his due process rights

were violated when the trial court refused to unseal certain documents for use by the defense;

(2) his due process rights were violated by the trial court’s refusal to hold a hearing on revealing

the identity of jurors to allow him to investigate possible misconduct, and by the jury’s

misconduct in considering matters not in evidence; and (3) his due process rights were violated

when the trial court admitted evidence of gang activity.

These claims are sufficient to require 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 days of

service 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

Case 3:08-cv-03286-WHA Document 4 Filed 08/01/08 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

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 thirty days of service of the answer.

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer,

as set forth in 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 days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the

court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of receipt of any opposition. If a motion is

filed it will be ruled upon without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered.

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

respondent by mailing a copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Papers intended to be

filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk rather than to the undersigned. Petitioner also

must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk

headed “Notice of Change of Address,” and comply with any orders of the court within the time

allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. 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: August 1 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.08\GUTIERREZ3286.OSC.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-03286-WHA Document 4 Filed 08/01/08 Page 3 of 3