Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00429/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00429-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hunter Anglea
Respondent
Johnell Lee Carter
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNELL LEE CARTER,

Petitioner,

v.

HUNTER ANGLEA,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-00429-JCS (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Dkt. Nos. 2 and 5

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state 

convictions. The petition for such relief is here for review under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

The petition states cognizable claims. On or before June 17, 2019, respondent shall 

file in response to the petition an answer or a dispositive motion. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, in 2015 a Santa Clara Superior Court jury convicted 

petitioner of five counts of oral copulation with a child (Cal. Penal Code § 288.7(b)). 

Various sentencing enhancement allegations were found true. A sentence of 175 years to 

life was imposed.1 

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 

 

1 This is the total term. Petitioner was sentenced to five consecutive terms of 30 years to 

life, plus another consecutive term of 25 years to life. 

Case 3:19-cv-00429-JCS Document 7 Filed 04/11/19 Page 1 of 4
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

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). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that (1) the trial court denied 

him the right to represent himself; (2) the trial court denied his motions to change counsel 

in violation of the Sixth Amendment; and (3) under to state law, he should have been 

charged with continuous sexual abuse of a child (Cal. Penal Code § 288.5), rather than 

with multiple counts of oral copulation with a child (Cal. Penal Code § 288.7). When 

liberally construed, Claims 1 and 2 are cognizable on federal habeas review and shall 

proceed. Claim 3 is in truth a state law claim and therefore not cognizable on federal 

habeas review. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011) (violations of state law are 

not remediable on federal habeas review, even if state law were erroneously applied or 

interpreted). The Court, then, shall construe Claim 3 as an allegation that there was 

insufficient evidence to find petitioner guilty of the charges under Cal. Penal Code § 288.7. 

So construed, it is cognizable and shall proceed. 

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments

thereto, and a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form on 

respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California. The 

Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

2. On or before June 17, 2019, respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 

petitioner 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 based on 

petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on 

Case 3:19-cv-00429-JCS Document 7 Filed 04/11/19 Page 2 of 4
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

petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have been 

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

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

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the 

answer is filed. 

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, on or before June 17, 2019, a motion 

to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file 

with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any 

opposition is filed.

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on 

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. 

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

Court and respondent 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).

7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will 

be granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

8. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2 and 5) is 

GRANTED. 

9. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions. 

 10. Petitioner consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 3.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2019

_________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00429-JCS Document 7 Filed 04/11/19 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNELL LEE CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUNTER ANGLEA,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-00429-JCS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 11, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Johnell Lee Carter ID: AZ-3587

Sierra Conservation Center

5150 Obyrnes Ferry Road

Jamestown, CA 95327 

Dated: April 11, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JOSEPH C. SPERO

Case 3:19-cv-00429-JCS Document 7 Filed 04/11/19 Page 4 of 4