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

No. C 09-1462 RS (PR)

THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 7/2/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

HOWARD ALLEN YOUNG,

Petitioner,

v.

DERRAL ADAMS, Warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 09-1462 RS (PR)

THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. 

In response to the Court’s order, petitioner has elected to proceed with his exhausted

claims, the unexhausted claims having been dismissed. The exhausted and cognizable claims

are: (1) the admission at trial of four uncharged criminal offenses violated due process; (2)

the admission at trial of hearsay evidence of three additional uncharged burglaries violated

due process; (3) abuse of discretion by the trial court in allowing the prosecutor to impeach

petitioner with all four of petitioner’s prior felony convictions; (4) violation of petitioner’s

Case 3:09-cv-01462-RS Document 42 Filed 07/02/10 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

No. C 09-1462 RS (PR)

2 THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

rights to a speedy trial and to a preliminary hearing; (5) imposition by the trial court of an

“illegal enhancement” by failing to bifurcate the trial with respect to his prior convictions;

(6) ineffective assistance of counsel; and (7) the identification of petitioner was

constitutionally faulty. Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable and require a

response. 

CONCLUSION

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

attachments thereto, 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. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

days of the date this order is filed, 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 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, within ninety (90) days of the date this

order is filed, 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 non-opposition 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.

Case 3:09-cv-01462-RS Document 42 Filed 07/02/10 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

No. C 09-1462 RS (PR)

3 THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01462-RS Document 42 Filed 07/02/10 Page 3 of 3