Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02292/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02292-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Brown
Respondent
Raymond Joseph Garcia
Petitioner
People of the State of California
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND JOSEPH GARCIA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

J. BROWN, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2292 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket no. 2)

INTRODUCTION

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

Quentin State Prison, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging the constitutional validity of his state conviction. Petitioner’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2) is GRANTED. This order directs Respondent to

show cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted of robbery and assault in Santa

Clara Superior Court and ultimately sentenced to a term of five years on December 5,

2003. Petitioner filed the instant petition on June 6, 2005.

DISCUSSION

I 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

Case 3:05-cv-02292-JSW Document 3 Filed 11/23/05 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

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

II Legal Claims

The petition raises the following grounds for relief: (1) jury instruction error as to

Petitioner’s possession of recently stolen property and as to flight as evidence of guilt;

and (2) denial of right to jury trial or standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt at

sentencing. Liberally construed, it does not appear from the face of the petition that

Petitioner is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, Respondent is ordered to respond to the

petition as set forth below.

Furthermore, Petitioner has named as a respondent the People of the State of

California, in addition to Warden J. Brown. The proper respondent in a federal habeas

corpus petition is the petitioner's immediate custodian. Brittingham v. United States, 982

F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). A custodian "'is the person having a day-to-day control

over the prisoner. That person is the only one who can produce 'the body' of the

petitioner.'" Id. (quoting Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). “This

person typically is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” 

Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Therefore, the

People of the State of California are hereby DISMISSED from this action.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted (docket no. 2).

2. The Respondent named People of the State of California is DISMISSED from

this action.

3. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition, and

all attachments thereto, on Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General

Case 3:05-cv-02292-JSW Document 3 Filed 11/23/05 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

of the State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

4. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60)

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. 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. 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 (30) days of his receipt of the answer.

5. 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 non-opposition within thirty (30)

days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

6. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice

of Change of Address.” He 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: November 23, 2005

 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02292-JSW Document 3 Filed 11/23/05 Page 3 of 3