Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07619/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07619-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Martel
Respondent
Joseph Taylor
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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH TAYLOR,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL MARTEL,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-07619-RS (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state 

convictions. The petition for habeas relief is now before the Court for review pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

The operative petition states cognizable claims. Respondent shall file a response to 

that petition on or before January 20, 2020, unless an extension is granted.

It appears petitioner has not exhausted his claims. Respondent is directed to 

consider whether the claims have been exhausted. If they have not, respondent may 

wish to file a motion to dismiss on nonexhaustion grounds. 

BACKGROUND

In 2015, a San Francisco County Superior Court jury convicted petitioner of assault 

with intent to commit forcible sodomy or forcible oral copulation, felony false 

Case 3:18-cv-07619-RS Document 16 Filed 10/17/19 Page 1 of 4
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

CASE NO. 18-cv-07619-RS

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

imprisonment, misdemeanor false imprisonment, and misdemeanor sexual battery. A 

sentence of 18 years was imposed. Petitioner filed an appeal in the state appellate court, 

which was denied. It is unclear whether he ever presented his claims to the state supreme 

court. 

DISCUSSION

I. 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). 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. Summary dismissal is appropriate 

only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 

patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

II. Claims

The Court reinstates the second amended petition (Dkt. No. 12) as the operative 

petition.1 In that filing, petitioner has made it clear he wishes to proceed only on the 

claims he raised on direct appeal. Therefore, as grounds for federal habeas relief, 

petitioner alleges (i) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction under Cal. 

Penal Code § 220; and (ii) the trial court violated his constitutional rights by failing to 

declare a mistrial after the jury heard prejudicial testimony, and then by giving flawed jury 

instructions. When liberally construed, these claims are cognizable on federal habeas 

review. 

 

1 The order dismissing the second amended petition with leave to amend (Dkt. No. 14) is 

VACATED. 

Case 3:18-cv-07619-RS Document 16 Filed 10/17/19 Page 2 of 4
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

CASE NO. 18-cv-07619-RS

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

The second amended petition does not contain a copy of petitioner’s state appellate 

brief, though petitioner provided such a copy in other filings. For the convenience of the 

parties, the Court attaches to the present order a copy of that brief. 

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments 

thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the State of 

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

2. On or before January 20, 2020, respondent shall file with the Court and serve 

on petitioner 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 

based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve 

on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have been 

transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse 

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the 

answer is filed. 

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, on or before January 20, 2020, a 

motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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.

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. 

6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the 

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the 

Case 3:18-cv-07619-RS Document 16 Filed 10/17/19 Page 3 of 4
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

CASE NO. 18-cv-07619-RS

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 California

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).

7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will 

be granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

8. Because this order addresses the concerns raised in petitioner’s motion for an 

extension of time (Dkt. No. 15), that motion is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October ___, 2019

_________________________

 RICHARD SEEBORG

 United States District Judge

17

Case 3:18-cv-07619-RS Document 16 Filed 10/17/19 Page 4 of 4