Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04851/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04851-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Corrections
Respondent
Gustavo Covian
Petitioner
Jeanne Woodford
Respondent

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

GUSTAVO COVIAN,

Petitioner,

 v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, in her capacity of the

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 05-04851 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On November 28, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 10, 2006, the Court denied Petitioner’s request to stay unexhausted

claims and hold his petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of those claims. In that Order, the

Court required Petitioner to file a signed document stating unequivocally which option he

chooses within thirty(30) days of the Court’s Order.

On May 8, 2006, Petitioner filed an amended petition which omits the unexhausted

claims.

BACKGROUND

On February 11, 2003, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County

Santa Clara, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree murder with the

added financial gain special circumstance. Petitioner was later sentenced to life in prison

without the possibility of parole.

Case 3:05-cv-04851-JSW Document 12 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

2

LEGAL CLAIMS

Petitioner contends his judgment of conviction was unlawfully and unconstitutionally

imposed in violation of his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the United States Constitution because the trial court refused to allow the defense to reopen its

case when new evidence pointing to Petitioner’s innocence became available during

deliberations and which was never presented to the jury that decided Petitioner’s guilt. 

Liberally construed, the claims appear potentially colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and

merit an answer from Respondents.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

1. Petitioner shall serve by certified mail a copy of this Order and the amended

petition and all attachments thereto upon Respondents.

2. Respondents shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within 60 days of

the date 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 issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on

Petitioner a copy of all portions of the administrative record 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 Respondents within 30 days of his receipt of the

answer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04851-JSW Document 12 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2