Lema v. The People ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 CHRISTOPHER LEMA, Case No. 20-cv-00631-RMI 9 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO 10 v. SHOW CAUSE 11 THE PEOPLE, 12 Defendant. 13 14 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 15 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Santa Clara County, so venue is proper here. See 16 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner has paid the filing fee and consented to the jurisdiction of a 17 Magistrate Judge. (Dkts. 1, 3). 18 BACKGROUND 19 Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder. People v. Lema, No. H044128, 2019 20 WL 1970325, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 3, 2019). Petitioner was sentenced to 16 years to life in 21 state prison. Id. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Id. The California 22 Supreme Court denied review. See Pet. at 3. 23 DISCUSSION 24 Standard of Review 25 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 26 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 27 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 1 requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 2 habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 3 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner . . . [and] state the facts 4 supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 5 “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real 6 possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 7 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). 8 Legal Claims 9 Petitioner’s sole ground for federal habeas relief asserts that his due process rights and 10 right to a fair trial were denied by the trial court’s response to a jury request for further explanation 11 of the differences between first-degree murder, second-degree murder and voluntary 12 manslaughter. Liberally construed, this claim is sufficient to require a response. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, Respondent shall file with the court, and serve on Petitioner, 15 within fifty-six (56) days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to 16 Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus 17 should not be granted. Respondent shall file with the answer, and serve on Petitioner, a copy of all 18 portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a 19 determination of the issues presented by the petition. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, 20 he shall do so by filing a traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight 21 (28) days of his receipt of the answer. 22 Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer, as set 23 forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If 24 Respondent files such a motion, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the date this order is entered. If a 25 motion is filed, Petitioner shall file with the court and serve on Respondent an opposition or 26 statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and 27 Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of 1 Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on 2 || Respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep 3 the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely 4 || fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 5 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (Sth Cir. 6 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 7 The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments 8 thereto and a Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction consent form on Respondent and Respondent's 9 || attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this 10 || order on Petitioner. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 12 Dated: 13 ~“ILLMAN IS Uisted States Magistrate Judge 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28