Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04636/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04636-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Edward Foster
Petitioner
Robert W. Fox
Respondent

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

No. C 15-4636 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

*E-Filed 3/3/16*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JAMES EDWARD FOSTER,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT W. FOX, Warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 15-4636 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 such 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. Respondent shall

file a response to the petition on or before June 14, 2016, unless an extension is granted. 

The petition may be untimely. Petitioner was sentenced in 2012 and the instant

petition was filed in 2015. Respondent is directed to consider first whether a motion to

dismiss on grounds of untimeliness is the most appropriate first response to the petition. 

If he so concludes, he may file a motion to dismiss, though he is not required to do so. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, in 2012, a Santa Clara County Superior Court jury

convicted petitioner of driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license. 

Case 3:15-cv-04636-RS Document 5 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 4
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

1 If respondent moves to dismiss the petition as untimely, petitioner may raise actual

innocence as an equitable exception to the timeliness bar. 

No. C 15-4636 RS (PR)

2 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The jury found true allegations petitioner had served seven prior prison terms. Based on

these verdicts and findings, petitioner was sentenced to ten years in state prison. 

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. 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). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges (1) he is innocent of the crime;

(2) a police officer falsified the arrest report; (3) the trial court’s exclusion of evidence was

improper; (4) a jury instruction omitted an element of the criminal charge; (5) defense and

appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and (6) the prosecutor committed

misconduct, including witness coaching and presenting false evidence. When liberally

construed, Claims 3–6 are cognizable on federal habeas review.

Claim 1, however, is DISMISSED without leave to amend. Innocence itself is not an

cognizable claim for habeas relief. Habeas claims must relate to a “constitutional violation

occurring in the underlying state criminal proceeding.” Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390,

400 (1993). “Innocence” is not a violation occurring in the underlying state criminal

proceeding.1

 The claims petitioner attached to his innocence claim, with the exception of

Claim 2, are cognizable and have been listed above. 

Case 3:15-cv-04636-RS Document 5 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 4
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

No. C 15-4636 RS (PR)

3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Claim 2 is DISMISSED without leave to amend. Even if his initial arrest had been

based on a falsified report, there is no federal habeas relief for such a claim. In federal court,

petitioner may challenge only the custody resulting from his state criminal conviction, not the

custody consequent to his initial arrest. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Whether the false police

report was presented as evidence at trial is cognizable, however, and falls under the

prosecutorial misconduct claim. 

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. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

days of the date this order is filed, 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, within ninety (90) days of the date this

order is filed, 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.

Case 3:15-cv-04636-RS Document 5 Filed 03/03/16 Page 3 of 4
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

No. C 15-4636 RS (PR)

4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 3, 2016 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04636-RS Document 5 Filed 03/03/16 Page 4 of 4