Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00079/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00079-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Galaza
Respondent
Michael L. Jones
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

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL L. JONES,

Petitioner,

vs.

GEORGE GALAZA, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-0079 JSW (PR)

SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE; DENYING

MOTION FOR COUNSEL AND

DIRECTING CLERK TO REOPEN

CASE AND FILE AMENDED

PETITION

(Docket No. 37)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California incarcerated at the California State

Prison at Corcoran, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 on January 7, 2003 (docket no. 1). Per order dated January 14, 2003, Judge

Phyllis J. Hamilton denied Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and directed

Respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted (docket no. 3). On March

19, 2003, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as unexhausted (docket no. 6) 

and on July 1, 2003, the petition was reassigned to this Court (docket no. 11). On June

18, 2003, Petitioner filed a motion for “withdrawal and abeyance” and for leave to

amend his petition (docket no. 10) which was granted (docket no. 12). Thereafter,

Petitioner filed multiple status reports informing the Court of his attempts to exhaust

additional claims in the state courts (docket nos. 18-28). On November 24, 2004,

Petitioner sought leave of Court to file an amended petition (docket no. 30), which was

granted. Petitioner’s motion for counsel was denied (docket no. 31). Petitioner’s

motions seeking an extension of time to file an amended petitioner were granted (docket

nos. 35, 36). Petitioner filed an amended petition on December 29, 2005. Petitioner

subsequently filed a second motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s earlier denial

Case 3:03-cv-00079-JSW Document 38 Filed 04/10/06 Page 1 of 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 2

of his motion seeking appointment of counsel (docket no. 37). In this order, the Court

reopens the case which was previously administratively closed, orders the Clerk to file

the amended petition, reinstates the earlier order to show cause and DENIES Petitioner’s

motion for reconsideration (docket no. 37).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A Sonoma County Superior Court jury found Petitioner guilty of two counts of

home invasion robbery, one count of possession of stolen property, and two counts of

assault with a deadly weapon or by force likely to cause great bodily injury. In a

bifurcated proceeding, the trial court subsequently found true that Petitioner had suffered

a prior strike and a prior serious felony conviction. On December 1, 1999, the trial court

sentenced Petitioner to twenty-one years in state prison. Petitioner challenged his

conviction on direct appeal. On September 25, 2001, the California Court of Appeal

affirmed the judgment. On November 7, 2001, Petitioner petitioned for review in the

California Supreme Court. On December 19, 2001, the California Supreme Court denied

review. On January 3, 2002, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the

California Supreme Court. On June 26, 2002, the California Supreme Court denied the

petition. Petitioner filed the present petition on January 7, 2003. Petitioner sought leave

to exhaust additional claims in the state courts. Petitioner filed an amended petition on

December 29, 2005.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a 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). 

It 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

Case 3:03-cv-00079-JSW Document 38 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 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 3

detained is not entitled thereto." Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) His right to equal

protection and his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury venire were denied when the

panel called was not a fair cross section of the community; (2) his equal protection rights were

violated by the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges; and (3) his trial counsel was

ineffective. These claims are sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is denied. In the Northern District of

California, no motion for reconsideration may be brought without leave of court and

Petitioner failed to seek leave to file such a motion. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). However, the

Court has considered the motion as a second motion for counsel, as the earlier motion

was denied without prejudice. As Petitioner’s amended petition has been filed and appears

to adequately represent the claims set forth therein, the motion is DENIED for the reasons set

forth in the Court’s earlier denial of counsel (docket no. 37). However, the Court will sua

sponte reconsider the motion should circumstances change requiring the appointment of

counsel.

2. The Clerk shall reopen this administratively closed case, file the amended petition

and serve this order and the amended petition and all attachments thereto on Respondent's

attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of

this order on Petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty 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 issued. 

Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state

Case 3:03-cv-00079-JSW Document 38 Filed 04/10/06 Page 3 of 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 4

trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the

issues presented by the petition. 

4. 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 his receipt of the answer. 

5. It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 10, 2006

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00079-JSW Document 38 Filed 04/10/06 Page 4 of 4