Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01437/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01437-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ken Clark
Respondent
Robert David Wesson
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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DAVID WESSON,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-1437 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Robert David Wesson, an inmate at the Corcoran Substance Abuse Treatment Facility,

filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court

reviewed the petition, determined that the petition stated three claims for federal habeas relief

but that state judicial remedies had not been exhausted as to the claim for ineffective assistance

of counsel, and ordered Wesson to choose how he wanted to deal with the mixed petition

problem. See Order On Initial Review. Wesson then filed an "election by petitioner" in which

he chose the option to delete the unexhausted claim and go forward with only the exhausted

claims. Wesson also filed an amendment in which he substituted in warden Ken Clark as the

respondent in this action. Accordingly, the court now orders:

1. The petition states two cognizable claims that warrant a response: (a) a claim that

Wesson's rights to a "fair trial by jury under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments" were

violated because the prosecution was allowed under state law to prove Wesson's propensity to

commit sex offenses based on the mere fact of the prior convictions without evidence of the

conduct that led to those convictions, and (2) a claim that his rights under the Sixth and

Case 3:07-cv-01437-SI Document 9 Filed 09/04/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Fourteenth Amendment to confront witnesses and to due process were violated when the court

admitted hearsay evidence to prove his prior convictions. The ineffective assistance of counsel

claim is dismissed.

2. Warden Ken Clark is substituted in as the respondent in place of the People of the

State of California.

3. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the contents of the

case file upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of

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

4. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before November 16, 2007,

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. 

5. 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 December 21, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 4, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01437-SI Document 9 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 2