Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04568/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04568-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jared Alger
Petitioner
Jim MacDonald
Defendant

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JARED ALGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JIM MACDONALD,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cv-04568-HRL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner Jared Alger, a California prisoner, seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §

2254, challenging his state conviction. According to the petition, a jury in Contra Costa County 

found Alger guilty of manslaughter, personal use of a firearm, false imprisonment, and assault.1

The petition further states: Alger appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which 

reversed his conviction. The California Supreme Court subsequently vacated that decision and 

remanded for reconsideration. On remand, Alger’s conviction was upheld. Alger says that the 

California Supreme Court denied his petition for review on December 11, 2013, as did the U.S. 

Supreme Court on October 6, 2014.

Petitioner has paid the filing fee and has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States 

Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 5). 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.

 

1 According to the petition, the sentence for assault was stayed.

Case 3:15-cv-04568-WHO Document 6 Filed 01/28/16 Page 1 of 3
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

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.

Petitioner claims the following grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) he was wrongfully 

denied an opportunity to cross-examine the coroner who performed the autopsy; and (2) his right 

to counsel was violated because his retained counsel was not permitted to substitute in place of the 

public defender. Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable under § 2254 and merit an 

answer from Respondent.

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition (Docket No. 1) 

and all attachments thereto, as well as a magistrate judge jurisdiction consent form, 

on Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of 

California.

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety (90) 

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 trial record that have been transcribed 

previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the 

petition. At that time, Respondent shall also return the magistrate judge 

jurisdiction consent form.

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

reply) with the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of the 

date the answer is filed.

Case 3:15-cv-04568-WHO Document 6 Filed 01/28/16 Page 2 of 3
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

4. Respondent may file 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 nonopposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent 

shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of 

receipt of any opposition.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04568-WHO Document 6 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 3