Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00853/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00853-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Travell Brown
Petitioner
Robert Horel
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAVELL BROWN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT HOREL,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-00853 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Travell Brown is currently incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison in

Crescent City, California. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, he has stated valid claims

under 28 U.S.C. 2254.

STATEMENT

Petitioner was charged with two counts: Count One alleged battery on a non-inmate,

and Count Two alleged resisting a police officer. In November 2004, Count One resulted in a

mistrial after the jury could not reach a verdict. Petitioner was, however, convicted of Count

Two. He was sentenced to three years, to be served consecutively with a sentence he is

currently serving on an unrelated drug charge. (He has not yet begun serving his sentence for

the underlying offense.) 

He appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, asserting violations of his

rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The California

Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction in August 2006. Petitioner then filed a petition for

Case 3:08-cv-00853-WHA Document 4 Filed 02/20/08 Page 1 of 3
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

 Although petitioner provided the decision from the California Court of Appeal, he did not provide

anything in the record that substantiated the rest of the procedural history with respect to the California Supreme

Court and petition for writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States. Respondent should

expressly address this point.

2

review in the California Supreme Court, raising the same grounds for review. His petition was

denied review in November 2006. His ninety-day period to petition for a writ of certiorari from

the United States Supreme Court expired on February 12, 2007. Petitioner filed his federal

habeas on February 7, 2008.1

ANALYSIS

According to 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(A), the one-year period of limitation runs from the

latest of “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the

expiration of the time for seeking such review.” Petitioner filed his petition five days before his

one-year limitations period expired; his petition was therefore timely.

A district court may entertain a habeas petition filed by someone in custody pursuant to

a state-court judgment but only on grounds that he is held in violation of the Constitution, laws

or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). A court may “issue an order directing the

respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,” unless the petition is baseless. 

28 U.S.C. 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only if the petition’s allegations are vague,

conclusory, incredible, or frivolous. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir.

1990).

Petitioner makes the following claims (which were raised earlier in state court):

(i) the trial court’s decision to jointly try Counts One and Two violated his rights to due process

and a fair trial under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because the counts were unrelated,

involved different witnesses and allegedly occurred several days apart; (ii) the trial court

violated his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments when it ordered him

to appear before the jury in shackles without adequate inquiry into his security risk; (iii) the trial

court violated his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and his Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights to a fair trial and due process because it failed to provide a specific

unanimity instruction despite the state’s “multiple act” theory of the case; (iv) the trial court

Case 3:08-cv-00853-WHA Document 4 Filed 02/20/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment when it instructed the jury that

petitioner could be convicted of acts with which he had not been charged prior to trial; and (v)

the cumulative effect of these errors deprived him a fundamentally fair trial in violation of his

Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Petitioner states valid claims. The state

therefore must answer.

CONCLUSION

The Clerk immediately shall serve respondent’s counsel with a copy of the

petition, all attachments to it, and this order. Respondent shall file and serve upon petitioner,

by MARCH 20, 2008, an answer conforming to Rule 5 of the Rules governing Section 2254

cases in the United States District Courts. Respondent shall, by that date, also serve all other

materials required by Habeas Local Rule 2254-6(b). The record must be indexed. If petitioner

wishes to respond to the answer, he shall file a traverse with the Court and serve it upon

respondent within thirty days of service of the answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00853-WHA Document 4 Filed 02/20/08 Page 3 of 3