Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05620/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05620-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew S. Austin
Petitioner
Richard Subia
Respondent

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW S. AUSTIN,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD SUBIA, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-5620 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Andrew S. Austin, currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, filed a petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the court

for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases. 

BACKGROUND

According to the habeas petition, Austin was convicted in Santa Clara County

Superior Court of aggravated sexual assault of a child under age 14, continuous sexual abuse

of a child under 14, and lewd and lascivious acts on a child. On August 19, 2005, he was

sentenced to 27 years to life in prison. 

Austin appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and the

California Supreme Court denied the petition for review in 2006. He then filed this action.

Case 3:07-cv-05620-MHP Document 5 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 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

2

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).

The petition alleges four claims: First, Austin claims his right to due process was

violated when the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by asking a prejudicial question of a

witness. Second, he claims that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to ask

for a mistrial when the jury was exposed to the improper question mentioned in the first

claim. Third, August claims that his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were violated

when the court refused to allow defense counsel to question the victim as to whether her

friend had ever touched her to demonstrate a source for her sexual knowledge. See Petition,

p. 43. Fourth, he claims that the evidence was insufficient to establish the element of force

or duress for the aggravated sexual assault of a child count, which is liberally construed to be

a due process claim. The claims are cognizable in federal habeas and warrant a response

from respondent.

Petitioner is cautioned that a federal court has jurisdiction to issue the writ to remedy

violations of the laws, treaties, or Constitution of the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a),

but not to remedy violations of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991).

Although petitioner's fourth claim requires discussion of state law because it concerns the

proof of elements of a state-defined crime, the first three claims have excessive devotion to

state court cases. The discussion of state law has led to an unnecessarily long 55-page brief. 

In his traverse, petitioner should strive to focus his discussion on the federal constitutional

Case 3:07-cv-05620-MHP Document 5 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 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

3

claims rather than state law. Petitioner's traverse may not exceed 25 pages in length. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states cognizable claims for habeas relief and warrants a response. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California.

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before May 23, 2008, 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 must file with

the answer a copy of all portions of the state court record that have been previously

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

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

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before June 27, 2008. His traverse may not

exceed 25 pages in length. 

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 11, 2008 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:07-cv-05620-MHP Document 5 Filed 03/12/08 Page 3 of 3