Opinion
24-cv-02967-JSC
07-08-2024
ANDRE WILLIAM FURTADO, Plaintiff, v. CALIPATRIA STATE PRISON, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, United States District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding without an attorney, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction in state court. Because the petition states grounds for federal habeas relief that are capable of judicial determination, a response from Respondent is ordered.
Petitioner has paid the filing fee.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner was convicted in Santa Clara County Superior Court for kidnaping and sentenced to a term of 104 years to life in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for review. Petitioner then filed the instant federal petition.
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
In claims one and two on the form petition, Petitioner contends there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for kidnaping. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) In claim three on the form, Petitioner contends he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to object to victim restitution and to call favorable witnesses. (Id.) These claims, when liberally construed, present grounds for federal habeas relief that are capable of judicial determination.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 1. The clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order upon the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email addresses: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov and docketmgsfawt@doj.ca.gov. The petition and the exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of California. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order on petitioner.
2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, on or before October 4, 2024, 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 (a reply) with the Court and serving it on Respondent on or before November 4, 2024.
3. Respondent may, on or before October 4, 2024, 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 on or before November 4, 2024, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply on or before November 18, 2024.
5. 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.