Campbell v. People of the State of California ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DESMOND O. CAMPBELL, 11 Case No. 23-cv-04580 BLF (PR) Petitioner, 12 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 13 14 People of the State of California, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 19 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. Dkt. No. 1. After his in 20 forma pauperis application was denied, Petitioner paid the filing fee. Dkt. No. 7. 21 22 BACKGROUND 23 According to the petition, Petitioner was found guilty by a jury in Contra Costa 24 County Superior Court of first degree burglary. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. He was sentenced to 35 25 years to life as a three-striker. Id. at 1, 7. On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal 26 granted in part and denied in part the conviction. Id. at 3. The California Supreme Court 27 denied review. Id. 1 2022. Id. at 4. 2 Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas action on September 6, 2023. 3 4 DISCUSSION 5 I. Standard of Review 6 This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 7 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. 8 § 2254(a). 9 10 It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause 11 why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant 12 or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 13 II. Analysis 14 Petitioner raises the following grounds for habeas relief: 1) ineffective assistance of 15 counsel in advising him to refuse a plea deal; and 2) prosecutorial misconduct claims based 16 on several improper remarks to the jury. Dkt. No. 1 at 5. Liberally construed, these claims 17 are cognizable and merit an answer from Respondent. 18 III. Proper Respondent 19 Petitioner has named the “People of the State of California” as Respondent in this 20 matter. The rules governing relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 require a person in custody 21 22 pursuant to the judgment of a state court to name the “‘state officer having custody’” of 23 him as the respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting 24 Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section § 2254). This 25 person typically is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. See 26 Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, Petitioner is 1 currently incarcerated at the California Training Facility where E. Borla is currently the 2 Acting Warden. Accordingly, the Clerk shall replace “People of the State of California” 3 with Acting Warden E. Borla as the Respondent in this matter. 4 5 CONCLUSION 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 7 1. The Clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order upon the Respondent 8 and the Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the 9 following email address: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov. The petition and any exhibits 10 thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of 11 California. See Dkt. No. 1. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 12 2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60) 13 days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the 14 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should 15 not be issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all 16 portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant 17 to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 18 If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with 19 the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the 20 answer. 21 3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 22 answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 23 Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court 24 and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty- 25 eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the court and serve 26 on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition. 1 4, It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded 2 || that all communications with the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true 3 || copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the Court and all 4 || parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of 5 || Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure 6 || to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to 7 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: _ December 4, 2023 feclwfhacnan __ ' BETH LABSON FREEMAN 0 United States District Judge 1] 12 13 15 16 © Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2? 5 Order to Show Cause PRO-SE\BLF\HC.23\04580Campbell_ose 26 27