Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00119/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00119-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. L. Runnels
Respondent
Gregory Young
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY YOUNG, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-0119 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

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

State Prison-Sacramento in Represa, California, has filed a habeas corpus petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state

conviction. This order directs Respondent to show cause why the amended petition

should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the amended petition, Petitioner was convicted after trial of being a

felon in possession of a firearm in Alameda County Superior Court and ultimately resentenced (after a reversal on appeal) to a term of twenty five years to life in state prison. 

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal in 2002. The

Supreme Court of California denied Petitioner’s petition for review in 2004. Petitioner

filed a federal habeas petition on January 7, 2005. 

On March 14, 2005, this Court dismissed the petition with leave to amend (docket

Case 3:05-cv-00119-JSW Document 13 Filed 02/09/07 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

no. 6). On April 14, 2005, the Court granted Petitioner’s request for an extension of time

to file his amended petition. Petitioner filed an amended petition on May 2, 2005 (docket

no. 8). On May 25, 2006, the Court again dismissed the petition with leave to amend and

on June 29, 2006, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition, the operative pleading in

this case. 

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

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) Petitioner’s conviction

after testifying violates the Fifth Amendment; (2) trial counsel violated Petitioner’s right

to effective assistance of counsel by misadvising him of the consequences of going to

trial; and (3) Petitioner was subjected to ineffective assistance at his re-sentencing

hearing. 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.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. 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

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

Case 3:05-cv-00119-JSW Document 13 Filed 02/09/07 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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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: 02/09/07 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00119-JSW Document 13 Filed 02/09/07 Page 3 of 3