Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05989/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05989-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deborah Asuncion
Defendant
Kamala Harris
Defendant
Christopher Johnson
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

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, 

Petitioner,

 v.

DEBORAH ASUNCION; KAMALA

HARRIS,

Respondents.

/

No. C 16-5989 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Dkt. No. 2, 3, 6)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging his state court conviction. His motions for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED. For the reasons discussed below, respondent is

ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted and the motion for appointment of

counsel is DENIED.

STATEMENT

Petitioner was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court of second-degree robbery

and sentenced to a term of 30 years in state prison under California’s “Three Strikes Law.” His

appeals to the California Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court were denied, as

was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the Monterey County Superior Court in 2016. 

Thereafter, petitioner filed the instant federal petition.

ANALYSIS

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

Case 3:16-cv-05989-WHA Document 8 Filed 12/01/16 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

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 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 Section 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)).

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Petitioner claims that: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to

inadmissible and damaging testimony; (2) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; (3) trial

counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the prosecutor’s misconduct; (4) trial counsel was

ineffective in failing to keep petitioner’s statement to the police from being admitted into

evidence; and (5) the cumulative effect of the foregoing errors rendered the trial fundamentally

unfair. When liberally construed, these claim warrant 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-three (63)

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 based on the claim found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and

serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state prison disciplinary proceedings 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

Case 3:16-cv-05989-WHA Document 8 Filed 12/01/16 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

court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight days of the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within sixty-three (63) days, a motion to dismiss on procedural

grounds in lieu of an 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, petitioner shall file

with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within

twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and

serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of the date any opposition is filed.

4. 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).

5. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED because this case is not especially

complex and petitioner is capable of presenting his claims on his own. Counsel will be

appointed at a later date should the circumstances change so as to warrant such appointment, for

example if an evidentiary hearing becomes necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1 , 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-05989-WHA Document 8 Filed 12/01/16 Page 3 of 3